THE  ABOLITIONISTS 

TOGETHER  WITH    PERSONAL    MEMORIES    OF 

THE  STRUGGLE   FOR  HUMAN   RIGHTS 

1830-1864 


BY 

JOHN  F.  HUME 


G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 

NEW  YORK  AND  LONDON 

Cbe  fcnfcfcerbocfeer  press 
1005 


Ma. 


COPYRIGHT,  1903 

BY 
JOHN  F.  HUME 


Reproduced  by  DUOPAGE      process 
in  the  United  States  of  America 

MICRO   PHOTO   INC. 
Cleveland  12,  Ohio 


Unicltetbochcr 

/  i  i  o5 


FOREWORD 

THE  opening  chapter  of  this  work  was  prepared 
during  the  recent  presidential  campaign.  It 
was  the  idea  of  the  author  that  it  should  appear  in 
one  of  the  leading  newspapers  or  magazines  before 
the  election,  but  maturer  reflection  brought  about 
a  change  of  purpose.  He  realized  that  its  publica 
tion  at  that  time,  might,  not  altogether  unreason 
ably,  be  looked  upon  as  a  political  move  having  as 
its  object  the  election  or  defeat  of  a  particular  can 
didate  for  office,  whereas  he  had  no  desire  to  play 
the  partisan.  His  sole  aim  was  to  vindicate  the 
character  of  a  portion  of  the  citizens  of  this  country 
— some  living,  some  dead — whom  he  had  always 
believed  to  be  most  deserving  of  popular  esteem, 
from  what  he  considered  the  unmerited  aspersions 
of  a  man  who  has  since  come  into  a  position  so  con 
spicuous  and  so  influential  that  his  condemnation 
necessarily  carries  with  it  a  damaging  effect. 

Having  gone  so  far  as  the  preparation  of  the  initial 
chapter,  he  concluded  that  proofs  of  his  assumptions 
and  assertions  might  at  certain  points  be  thought 
desirable,  if  not  necessary,  and  that  he  should  so 
prolong  his  work  as  to  provide  them.  His  first  idea 
at  this  point,  as  his  years  went  back  beyond  the 
beginning  of  the  Abolitionist  movement  in  this 
country,  and  as  he  had  been  from  early  boyhood 

502iu 


iv  Foreword 

identified  with  this  movement,  was  to  contribute 
such  information  as  his  recollection  of  events  would 
supply.  In  other  words,  he  decided  to  write  a 
narrative,  the  matter  of  which  would  be  reminiscent, 
with  here  and  there  a  little  history  woven  in  among 
the  strands  of  memory  like  a  woof  in  the  warp.  It 
has  ended  in  history  supplying  the  warp,  and  the 
reminiscence  indifferently  supplying  the  woof. 

However,  the  value  of  the  production  is,  doubt 
less,  greatly  enhanced  by  the  change.  A  string  of 
pearls  —  dropping  the  former  simile  and  adopting 
another — is  estimated  according  to  the  gems  it  con 
tains,  and  not  because  of  the  cord  that  holds  it  to 
gether.  The  personal  experiences  and  recollections 
that  are  here  and  there  interwoven,  by  themselves 
would  be  of  little  consequence;  but  they  will  be 
found  to  carry  upon  them  certain  historical  facts 
and  inferences— some  new  in  themselves  and  in  their 
connections — which,  as  the  author  hopes  and  be 
lieves,  are  of  profitable  quality  and  abounding 
interest. 

In  consequence  of  the  change  of  plan  just  ex 
plained,  the  scope  of  the  work  is  materially  affected. 
What  was  begun  as  a  magazine  article,  and  continued 
as  a  brochure,  ends  in  a  volume. 

J.  F.  H. 

POUGHKEEFSIE,   N.  Y., 

July,  1905. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTKR  PACK 

I. — THEODORE  ROOSEVELT   AND  THE  ABO 
LITIONISTS  ......         i 

II. — THE  ABOLITIONISTS — WHO  AND  WHAT 

THEY  WERE 15 

III. — ONE  OF  THEIR  TRAITS  ....       26 

IV. — PRO-SLAVERY  PREJUDICE       .         .         -3° 

V. — THE  POLITICAL  SITUATION    .        .        .41 

VI. — ANTI-SLAVERY  PIONEERS        .         .         .49 

VII. — SALMON  PORTLAND  CHASE     .         •        •       59 

VIII. — JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS     .         .         .        .       67 

IX.— ANTI-SLAVERY  SOCIETIES       ...       72 

'.X. — WANTED,  AN  ANTI-SLAVERY  SOCIETY     .       79 

XI. — ANTI-SLAVERY  ORATORS        ...       88 

XII. — LINCOLN  AND  DOUGLAS         ...      94 

XIII. — ANTI-SLAVERY  WOMEN  .         .         .         .100 

XIV.— -MOBS     .         .         .         .        .         .         .108 

XV. — ANTI-SLAVERY  MARTYRS  .  .  113 

XVI. — THE  UNDERGROUND  RAILROAD      .         .     121 

XVII — COLONIZATION        .         .         .         .         .128 

XVIII. — LINCOLN  AND  EMANCIPATION         .         .     136 

XIX. — THE  END  OF  ABOLITIONISM    .        .        .     150 


vi  Contents 

CHAPTM  »AGE 

XX.— MISSOURI >57 

XXL— MISSOURI  (Continued)     .         .         .        .     i?4 

XXII  —SOME  ABOLITION  LEADERS     .        .        .186 

XXIII.— ROLLS  OF  HONOR   .....     201 

APPENDIX 

EMANCIPATION  PROCLAMATION  .  .  .  .211 
BORDER  SLAVE-STATE  MESSAGE  .  .  .  .213 
"  PRAYER  OF  TWENTY  MILLIONS"  .  .  .  214 

INDEX 2l^ 


THE  ABOLITIONISTS 


THE  ABOLITIONISTS 


CHAPTER   I 

THEODORE   ROOSEVELT  AND  THE  ABOLITIONISTS 

THHE    following   is   .an    extract    from    Theodore 
1       Roosevelt's  biography  of  Thomas  H.  Benton 
in  Houghton,  Mifflin,  &  Co.'s  American  Statesmen. 
Series,  published  in  1887: 

"  Owing  to  a  variety  of  causes,  the  Abolitionists  have 
received  an  immense  amount  of  hysterical  praise  which 
they  do  not  deserve,  and  have  been  credited  with  deeds 
done  by  other  men  whom,  in  reality,  they  hampered  and 
opposed  rather  than  aided.  After  1840,  the  professed 
Abolitionists  formed  a  small  and  comparatively  unim 
portant  portion  of  the  forces  that  were  working  towards 
the  restriction  and  ultimate  destruction  of  slavery;  and  ' 
much  of  what  they  did  was  positively  harmful  to  the 
cause  for  which  they  were  fighting.  Those  of  their 
number  who  considered  the  Constitution  as  a  league  with 
death  and  hell,  and  who,  therefore,  advocated  a  dissolu 
tion  of  the  Union,  acted  as  rationally  as  would  anti- 
polygamists  nowadays  if,  to  show  their  disapproval  of 
Mormonism,  they  should  advocate  that  Utah  should  be 
allowed  to  form  a  separate  nation.  The  only  hope  of 

i 


2  The  Abolitionists 

ultimately  suppressing  slavery  lay  in  the  preservation  of 
the  Union,  and  every  Abolitionist  who  argued  or  signed 
a  petition  for  the  dissolution  was  doing  as  much  to  per 
petuate  the  evil  he  complained  of,  as  if  he  had  been  a 
slaveholder.  The  Liberty  party,  in  running  Birney, 
simply  committed  a  political  crime,  evil  in  almost  all  its 
consequences.  They  in  no  sense  paved  the  way  for  the 
Republican  party,  or  helped  forward  the  Anti-Slavery 
cause,  or  hurt  the  existing  organizations.  Their  effect 
on  the  Democracy  was  nil ;  and  all  they  were  able  to 
accomplish  with  the  Whigs  was  to  make  them  put  for 
ward  for  the  ensuing  election  a  slaveholder  from  Louis 
iana,  with  whom  they  were  successful.  Such  were  the 
remote  results  of  their  conduct;  the  immediate  evils  they 
produced  have  already  been  alluded  to.  They  bore  con 
siderable  resemblance — except  that  after  all  they  really 
did  have  a  principle  to  contend  for — to  the  political  Pro 
hibitionists  of  the  present  day,  who  go  into  the  third 
party  organization,  and  are,  not  even  excepting  the 
saloon-keepers  themselves,  the  most  efficient  allies  on 
whom  intemperance  and  the  liquor  traffic  can  count. 

"Anti-Slavery  men  like  Giddings,  who  supported  Clay, 
were  doing  a  thousandfold  more  effective  work  for  the 
cause  they  had  at  heart  than  all  the  voters  who  supported 
Birney;  or,  to  speak  more  accurately,  they  were  doing 
all  they  could  to  advance  the  cause,  while  the  others  were 
doing  all  they  could  to  hold  it  back.  Lincoln  in  1860 
occupied  more  nearly  the  ground  held  by  Clay  than  that 
held  by  Birney;  and  the  men  who  supported  the  latter 
in  1844  were  the  prototypes  of  those  who  worked  to  op 
pose  Lincoln  in  1860,  and  only  worked  less  hard  because 
they  had  less  chance.  The  ultra  Abolitionists  discarded 
expediency,  and  claimed  to  act  for  abstract  right  on 
principle,  no  matter  what  the  results  might  be;  in  conse 
quence  they  accomplished  very  little,  and  that  as  much 


Theodore  Roosevelt  3 

for  harm  as  for  good,  until  they  ate  their  words,  and  went 
counter  to  their  previous  course,  thereby  acknowledging 
it  to  be  bad;  and  supported  in  the  Republican  party  the 
men  and  principles  they  had  so  fiercely  condemned. 
The  Liberty  party  was  not  in  any  sense  the  precursor  of 
the  Republican  party,  which  was  based  as  much  on  ex 
pediency  as  on  abstract  right,  and  was,  therefore,  able 
to  accomplish  good  instead  of  harm.  To  say  that  ex 
treme  Abolitionists  triumphed  in  Republican  success  and 
were  causes  of  it,  is  as  absurd  as  to  call  Prohibitionists 
successful  if,  after  countless  efforts  totally  to  prohibit 
the  liquor  traffic,  and  after  savage  denunciations  of  those 
who  try  to  regulate  it,  they  should  then  turn  round  and 
form  a  comparatively  insignificant  portion  of  a  victorious 
high-license  party.  The  men  who  took  a  great  and  effec 
tive  part  in  the  fight  against  slavery  were  the  men  who 
remained  with  their  respective  parties." 

No  word  of  praise  or  approval  has  Mr.  Roosevelt 
for  the  men  and  women — for  representatives  of  both 
sexes  were  active  sharers  in  the  work  performed — 
who  inaugurated,  and  for  a  long  period  carried  for 
ward,  the  movement  that  led  up  to  the  overthrow 
of  African  slavery  in  this  country.  He  has  no  en 
comiums  to  bestow  on  those  same  men  and  women 
for  the  protracted  and  exhausting  labors  they  per 
formed,  the  dangers  they  encountered,  the  insults 
they  endured,  the  sacrifices  they  submitted  to,  the 
discouragements  they  confronted  in  many  ways  and 
forms  in  prosecuting  their  arduous  undertaking. 
On  the  contrary,  he  has  only  bitter  words  of  con 
demnation.  In  his  estimation,  and  according  to  his 
dogmatic  utterance,  they  were  criminals — political 
criminals. 


4  The  Abolitionists 

His  words  make  it  very  manifest  that,  if  Mr. 
Roosevelt  had  been  a  voter  in  1840,  he  would  not 
have  been  an  Abolitionist.  He  would  not  have 
been  one  of  that  devoted  little  band  of  political 
philanthropists  who  went  out,  like  David  of  old,  to 
do  battle  with  one  of  the  giant  abuses  of  the  time, 
and  who  found  in  the  voter's  ballot  a  missile  that 
they  used  with  deadly  effect.  On  the  contrary,  he 
would  have  enrolled  himself  among  their  adversaries 
and  assailants,  becoming  a  member — because  it  is 
impossible  to  think  of  Theodore  Roosevelt  as  a  non- 
partisan — of  one  of  the  leading  political  parties  of 
the  day.  There  were  but  two  of  them — the  Whigs 
and  the  Democrats.  In  failing  to  support  one  or 
the  other  of  these  parties,  and  giving  their  votes 
and  influence  to  a  new  one  that  was  founded  and 
constructed  on  Anti-Slavery  lines,  the  Abolitionists, 
in  Mr.  Roosevelt's  opinion,  "committed  a  political 
crime." 

Now,  for  what  did  those  parties  stand  in  1840? 
Who  were  their  presidential  candidates  in  that  year? 
Martin  Van  Buren  was  the  candidate  of  the  Demo 
crats.  He  had  been  for  eight  years  in  the  offices  of 
Vice-President  and  President,  and  in  that  time,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  Anti-Slavery  people  of  the  coun 
try,  had  shown  himself  to  be  a  facile  instrument  in 
the  hands  of  the  slaveholders.  He  was  what  the 
Abolitionists  described  as  a  "doughface" — a  North 
ern  man  with  Southern  principles.  As  presiding 
officer  he  gave  the  casting  vote  in  the  Senate  for  the 
bill  that  excluded  Anti-Slavery  matter  from  the 
United  States  mails,  a  bill  justly  regarded  as  one  of 
the  greatest  outrages  ever  perpetrated  in  a  free 


Theodore  Roosevelt  5 

country,  and  as  holding  a  place  by  the  side  of  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Law.  True,  he  afterwards  —  this 
was  in  1848, — like  Saul  of  Tarsus,  saw  a  new  light 
and  announced  himself  as  a  Free  Soiler.  Then 
the  Abolitionists,  with  what  must  always  be  re 
garded  as  an  extraordinary  concession  to  partisan 
policy,  cast  aside  their  prejudices  and  gave  him 
their  support.  Yet  Mr.  Roosevelt  charges  them 
with  being  indifferent  to  the  demands  of  political 
expediency. 

General  William  Henry  Harrison,  candidate  of 
the  Whigs,  was  a  Virginian  by  birth  and  training, 
and  an  inveterate  pro-slavery  man.  When  Gov 
ernor  of  the  Territory  of  Indiana,  he  presided  over 
a  convention  that  met  for  the  purpose  of  favoring, 
notwithstanding  the  prohibition  in  the  Ordinance 
of  '87,  the  introduction  of  slavery  in  that  Territory. 

These  were  the  men  between  whom  the  old  parties 
gave  the  Abolitionists  the  privilege  of  pick  and 
choice.  Declining  to  support  either  of  them,  they 
gave  their  votes  to  James  G.  Birney,  candidate  of 
the  newly  formed  Liberty  party.  He  was  a  Southern 
man  by  birth  and  a  slave-owner  by  inheritance,  but, 
becoming  convinced  that  slavery  was  wrong,  he 
freed  his  negroes,  giving  them  homes  of  their  own, 
and  so  frankly  avowed  his  Anti-Slavery  convictions 
that  he  was  driven  from  his  native  State.  His  sup 
porters  did  not  expect  to  elect  him,  but  they  hoped 
to  begin  a  movement  that  would  lead  up  to  victory. 
They  were  planting  seed  in  what  they  believed  to 
be  receptive  soil. 

After  1840,  the  old  parties  became  more  and 
more  submissive  to  the  Slave  Power.  Conjointly, 


6  The  Abolitionists 

they  enacted  those  measures  that  became  known  as 
the  compromises  of  1850,  the  principal  ones  being 
the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  and  the  act  repealing  the 
Missouri  Compromise.  Both  of  them  pronounced 
these  acts  to  be  "a  finality,"  and  both  of  them  in 
national  convention  declared  there  should  be  no 
further  agitation  of  the  subject.  They  set  out  to 
muzzle  all  the  Anti-Slavery  voices  of  the  country. 

By  this  time  it  was  perfectly  manifest  that  there 
was  not  only  nothing  the  slaveholders  might  demand 
which  the  old  parties  would  not  concede,  but  that 
there  was,  so  far  as  the  slavery  issue  was  involved, 
absolutely  no  difference  between  them.  It  is  a 
notable  fact  that  in  the  eight  years  following  1840, 
of  the  four  presidential  candidates  put  in  nomination 
by  the  two  parties,  three  were  slaveholders,  the 
fourth  being  a  Northern  "doughface,"  and  both  of 
the  two  who  were  elected  held  slaves. 

For  the  nomination  and  election  of  one  of  these 
men,  whom  he  describes  as  "a  slaveholder  from 
Louisiana  "  (General  Taylor),  Mr.  Roosevelt  is  dis 
posed  to  hold  the  Abolitionists  accountable.  They 
forced  the  poor  Whigs  into  those  proceedings,  he 
intimates,  probably  by  telling  them  they  ought  to 
do  nothing  of  the  kind,  that  being  what  they  actually 
did  tell  them.  But  as  the  Abolitionists,  four  years 
earlier,  in  the  same  way  defeated  the  Whigs  when 
they  were  supporting  a  slaveholder  from  Kentucky 
(Clay),  and  a  man  who,  in  his  time,  did  more  for  the 
upbuilding  of  slavery  than  any  other  person  in 
America,  it  would  appear  that  the  score  of  responsi 
bility  on  their  part  was  fairly  evened  up. 

In  citing  the  action  of  Joshua  R.  Giddings  as  an 


Theodore  Roosevelt  7 

anti-third-party  man,  Mr.  Roosevelt  is  not  altogether 
fortunate.  Subsequent  to  the  presidential  campaign 
of  1844,  the  third-party  Abolitionists  held  a  conven 
tion  in  Pittsburg,  in  which  Giddings  was  a  leading 
actor.  As  chairman  of  the  committee  on  platform, 
he  submitted  a  resolution  declaring  that  both  of  the 
old  parties  were  "hopelessly  corrupt  and  unworthy 
of  confidence." 

The  Abolitionists  could  not  see  that  they  were 
under  obligation  to  either  of  the  old  parties,  believ 
ing  they  could  do  far  better  service  for  the  cause 
they  championed  by  standing  up  and  being  counted 
as  candidates  honestly  representing  their  principles. 
They  fought  both  of  the  old  parties,  and  finally  beat 
them.  They  killed  the  Whig  party  out  and  out, 
and  so  far  crippled  the  Democrats  that  they  have 
been  limping  ever  since.  Their  action,  in  the  long 
run,  as  attested  by  the  verdict  of  results,  proved 
itself  to  be  not  only  the  course  of  abstract  right, 
but  of  political  expediency. 

In  1840,  the  vote  of  the  third-party  Abolitionists, 
then  for  the  first  time  in  the  political  field,  was  7000; 
in  1844  it  was  60,000,  and  in  1848  it  was  nearly 
300,000.  From  that  time,  with  occasional  backsets, 
Mr.  Roosevelt's  "political  criminals"  went  steadily 
forward  until  they  mastered  the  situation.  From 
the  first,  they  were  a  power  in  the  land,  causing  the 
older  parties  to  quake,  Belshazzar-like,  at  sight  of 
their  writing  on  the  wall. 

But  according  to  Mr.  Roosevelt,  the  men  of  the 
Liberty-Free-Soil  party  had  no  share  in  fathering 
and  nurturing  the  Republican  party,  to  which  he 
assigns  all  the  credit  for  crushing  slavery.  Says  he, 


8  The  Abolitionists 

"The  Liberty  party  was  not  in  any  sense  the  pre 
cursor  of  the  Republican  party,  which  was  based  as 
much  on 'expediency  as  on  abstract  right."     It  is 
very  true  that  many  Republicans,  especially  in  the 
earlier  days,  were  neither  Abolitionists  nor  Anti- 
Slavery  people.     A  good  many  of  them,  like  Abra 
ham  Lincoln,  were  sentimentally  adverse  to  slavery, 
but  under  existing  conditions  did  not  want  it  dis 
turbed.     Many  of  them,  having  broken  loose  from 
the  old  parties,  had  no  other  place  of  shelter  and 
cared  nothing  for  slavery  one  way  or  the  other,  some 
being   of   the   opinion    of    one   of  the   new   party 
leaders  whom  the  writer  hereof  heard  declare  that 
"the  niggers  are  just  where  they  ought  to  be."    All 
this,  however,  does  not  prove  that  the  third-party 
people  were  not  the  real  forerunners  and  founders 
of  the  Republican  party.     They  certainly  helped  to 
break  up  the  old  organizations,   crushing  them   in 
whole   or   part.      They   supplied   a   contingent    of 
trained  and  desperately  earnest  workers,  their  hearts 
being  enlisted  as  well  as  their  hands.     And  what 
was  of  still  greater  consequence,  they  furnished  an 
issue,  and  one  that  was  very   much  alive,  around 
which  the  detached   fragments  of  the  old   parties 
could  collect  and  unite.     Their  share  in  the  com 
position  and  development  of  the  new  party  can  be 
illustrated.     Out  in  our  great  midland  valley  two 
rivers — the  Missouri  and  the  Mississippi— meet  and 
mingle  their  waters.      The  Missouri,  although  the 
larger  stream,  after  the  junction  is  heard  of  no  more; 
but  being  charged  with  a  greater  supply  of  sedimen 
tary  matter,  gives  its  color  to  the  combined  flood  of 
the  assimilated  waters.     Abolitionism  was  merged 


Theodore  Roosevelt  9 

in  Republicanism.  It  was  no  longer  spoken  of  as  a 
separate  element,  but  from  the  beginning  it  gave 
color  and  character  to  the  combination.  The  whole 
compound  was  Abolitionized. 

It  was  not,  indeed,  the  voting  strength,  although 
-  this  was  considerable,  that  the  Abolitionists  brought 
to  the  Republican  organization,  that  made  them  the 
real  progenitors  of  that  party.  It  is  possible  that 
the  other  constituents  entering  into  it,  which  were 
drawn  from  the  Anti-Slavery  Whigs,  the  "Anti- 
Nebraska  "  .Democrats,  the  "Barnburner"  Demo 
crats  of  New  York,  the  "Know-Nothings,"  etc., 
numbered  more  in  the  aggregate  than  the  Aboli 
tionists  it  included;  but  it  was  not  so  much  the 
number  of  votes  the  Abolitionists  contributed  that 
made  them  the  chief  creators  of  the  Republican 
party,  as  it  was  their  working  and  fighting  ability. 
They  had  undergone  a  thorough  training.  For 
nearly  twenty  years  they  had  been  in  the  field  in 
active  service.  For  the  whole  of  that  time  they  had 
been  exposed  to  pro-slavery  mobbing  and  almost 
every  kind  of  persecution.  They  had  to  conquer 
every  foot  of  ground  they  occupied.  They  had 
"Hone  an  immense  amount  of  invaluable  preparatory 
work.  To  deny  to  such  people  a  liberal  share  of  the 
credit  for  results  accomplished,  would  be  as  reason 
able  as  to  say  that  men  who  clear  the  land,  plough 
the  ground,  and  sow  the  seed,  because  others  may 
help  to  gather  the  harvest,  have  nothing  to  do  with 
raising  the  crop.  BuLjor  the  pioneer  work  of  the 
Abolitionists  there  would  have  been  no  Republican 
party. 
There  had  been  Anti-Slavery  people  in  this  coun- 


io  The  Abolitionists 

try  before  the  Abolitionists — conscientious,  zealous, 
intelligent — but  somehow  they  lacked  the  ability,  in 
the  language  of  the  pugilists,  to  "put  up  a  winning 
fight."  They  had  been  brushed  aside  or  trampled 
under  foot.  Not  so  with  the  Abolitionists.  They 
had  learned  all  the  tricks  of  the  enemy.  They  were 
not  afraid  of  opposition.  They  knew  how  to  give 
blows  as  well  as  to  take  them.  The  result  was  that 
from  the  time  they  organized  for  separate  political 
action  in  1840,  they  had  made  steady  progress,  al 
though  this  seemed  for  a  period  to  be  discouragingly 
slow.  It  was  only  a  question  of  time  when,  if  there 
had  been  no  Republican  party,  they  would  have 
succeeded  in  abolishing  slavery  without  its  assistance. 

Although,  as  before  remarked,  the  Republican 
party  was  made  up  of  a  good  many  elements  besides 
the  Abolitionists,  there  was  among  them  but  little 
homogeneousness.  They  were  indifferent,  if  not 
hostile,  to  each  other,  and,  if  left  to  themselves, 
would  never  have  so  far  coalesced  as  to  make  a  work 
ing  party.  They  had  no  settled  policy,  no  common 
ground  to  stand  on.  They  would  have  been  simply 
a  rope  of  sand.  But  the  Abolitionists  supplied  a 
bond  of  union.  *  They  had  a  principle  that  operated 
like  a  loadstone  in  bringing  the  factions  together. 

There  was  another  inducement  the  Abolitionists 
had  to  offer.  They  had  an  organization  that  was 
perfect  in  its  way.  It  was  weak  but  active.  It  had 
made  its  way  into  Congress  where  it  had  such  repre 
sentatives  as  John  P.  Hale  and  Salmon  P.  Chase  in 
the  Senate,  and  several  brilliant  men  in  the  Lower 
House.  It  had  a  complete  outfit  of  party  machinery. 
It  had  an  efficient  force  of  men  and  women  engaged 


Theodore  Roosevelt  n 

in  canvassing  as  lecturers  and  stump  orators.  It 
had  well  managed  newspapers,  and  the  ablest  pens 
in  the  country  —  not  excepting  Harriet  Beecher 
Stowe's — were  in  its  service.  All  this,  it  is  hardly 
necessary  to  say,  was  attractive  to  people  without 
political  homes.  The  Abolitionists  offered  them 
not  only  shelter  but  the  prospect  of  meat  and  drink 
in  the  future.  In  that  way  their  organization  be 
came  the  nucleus  of  the  Republican  party,  which 
was  in  no  sense  a  new  organization,  but  a  reorg 
anization  of  an  old  force  with  new  material  added. 

And  here  would  seem  to  be  the  proper  place  for 
reference  to  the  historical  fact  that  the  Republican 
party,  under  that  name,  had  but  four  years  of  ex 
istence  behind  it  when  the  great  crisis  came  in  the 
election  of  Lincoln  and  the  beginning  of  the  Civil 
War — Lincoln's  election  being  treated  by  the  South 
as  a  casus  belli.  The  Republican  party  was  estab 
lished  under  that  name  in  1856  and  Lincoln  was 
elected  in  1860. 

Now,  the  work  preparatory  to  Lincoln's  election 
was  not  done  in  four  years.  The  most  difficult  part 
of  it— the  most  arduous,  the  most  disagreeable,  the 
most  dangerous — had  been  done  long  before.  Part 
of  it  dated  back  to  1840.  Indeed,  the  performance 
of  the  Republican  party  in  those  four  years  was  not 
remarkably  brilliant.  With  the  slogan  of  "Free 
soil,  free  men,  and  Fremont"  it  made  an  ostenta 
tious  demonstration  in  1856— an  attempted  coup  de 
main — which  failed.  It  would  have  failed  quite  as 
signally  in  1860,  but  for  the  division  of  the  Demo 
cratic  party  into  the  Douglas  and  Breckenridge 
factions.  That  division  was  pre-arranged  by  the 


12  The  Abolitionists 

slaveholders  who  disliked  Douglas,  the  regular 
Democratic  nominee,  much  more  than  they  did 
Lincoln,  and  who  hoped  and  plotted  for  Lincoln's 
election  because  it  furnished  them  a  pretext  for 
rebellion. 

The  change  of  name  from  "Free  Soil  "  or  "Lib 
erty  "  to  "Republican  "  in  1856  had  very  little  sig 
nificance.  It  was  a  matter  of  partisan  policy  and 
nothing  more.  "Liberty"  and  "Free  Soil,"  as 
party  cognomens,  had  a  meaning,  and  were  sup 
posed  to  antagonize  certain  prejudices.  "Repub 
lican,"  at  that  juncture,  meant  nothing  whatever. 
Besides,  it  was  sonorous;  it  was  euphonious;  it  was 
palatable  to  weak  political  stomachs.  The  ready 
acceptance  of  the  new  name  by  the  Abolitionists 
goes  very  far  to  contradict  Mr.  Roosevelt's  accusa 
tion  against  them  of  being  regardless  of  the  claims 
of  political  expediency. 

The  writer  has  shown,  as  he  believes,  that  with 
out  the  preparatory  work  of  the  political  Abolition 
ists  there  would  have  been  no  Republican  party. 
He  will  now  go  a  step  further.  He  believes  that 
without  that  preliminary  service  there  would  not 
only  have  been  no  Republican  party,  but  no  Civil 
War  in  the  interest  of  free  soil,  no  Emancipa 
tion  Proclamation,  no  Thirteenth  and  Fourteenth 
Amendments  to  the  Federal  Constitution.  There 
might  have  been  and  probably  would  have  been 
considerable  discussion,  ending  in  a  protest,  more 
or  less  "ringing,"  when  slavery  was  permitted  to 
overstep  the  line  marked  out  by  the  Missouri  Com 
promise.  There  might  even  have  ^een  another 
"settlement."  But  no  such  adjustment  would 


Theodore  Roosevelt  13 

have  seriously  impeded  the  northward  march  of  the 
triumphant  Slave  Power.  Indeed,  in  that  event  it 
is  more  than  probable  that  ere  this  the  legal  repre 
sentatives  of  the  late  Robert  Toombs,  of  Georgia, 
would,  if  so  inclined,  have  made  good  his  boast  of 
calling  the  roll  of  his  slaves  at  the  foot  of  Bunker 
Hill  monument. 

So  far  we  have  dealt  with  Mr.  Roosevelt's  indict 
ment  of  the  Abolitionists  for  abandoning  the  old 
pro-slavery  political  parties,  and  undertaking  to  con 
struct  a  new  and  better  one.  That,  in  his  judgment, 
was  a  political  crime.  But  he  charges  them  with 
another  manifestation  of  criminality  which  was  much 
more  serious.  He  accuses  them  of  hostility  to  the 
Union,  which  was  disloyalty  and  treason.  The  evi 
dence  offered  by  him  in  support  of  his  accusation 
was  the  Anti-Unionist  position  taken  by  William 
Lloyd  Garrison,  who  branded  the  Union  as  a  "league 
with  hell,"  and  some  of  his  associates.  But  Garri 
son  was  not  a  leader,  or  even  a  member,  of  the  third 
or  Liberty  party.  He  denounced  it  almost  as  bit 
terly  as  Mr.  Roosevelt. 

Garrison  was  a  Quaker,  a  non-resistant,  and  a  non-  \ 
voter.  He  relied  on  moral  suasion.  He  saw  no 
salvation  in  politics.  The  formation  of  a  new  Anti- 
Slavery  party  excited  his  fiery  indignation.  He  de 
clared  that  it  was  "ludicrous  in  its  folly,  pernicious 
as  a  measure  of  policy,  and  useless  as  a  political 
contrivance." 

Far  and  away  the  most  potential  member  and 
leader  of  the  political  Abolitionists  was  Salmon  P. 
Chase.  Instead  of  denouncing  the  Constitution  as 
"a  league  with  death  and  hell,"  he  claimed  that  it 


14  The  Abolitionists 

was  an  Anti-Slavery  document  and  should  be  so 
construed.  As  for  the  Union,  by  his  services  in 
successfully  managing  the  finances  of  the  country  in 
its  great  crisis,  he  did  as  much  to  sustain  the  Union 
as  any  other  man  of  that  time.  To  accuse  him  of 
hostility  and  infidelity  to  the  Union,  is  something 
that  no  one  can  do  with  impunity.  In  fact,  so  clear 
and  so  clean,  as  \yell  as  so  bold  and  striking,  is  the 
record  of  Chase  and  his  associates,  beginning  in  1840 
and  continuing  down  until  the  last  shackle  was 
stricken  from  the  last  bondsman's  limbs,  that  even 
the  shadow  of  the  White  House  cannot  obscure  it. 
Nor  is  Mr.  Roosevelt  happy  in  his  illustration, 
when,  in  his  concluding  arraignment  of  the  Abo 
litionists,  he  seeks  to  discredit  them  as  an  organiza 
tion  of  impracticables  by  comparing  them  to  the 
political  Prohibitionists  of  to-day.  When  the  latter, 
if  that  time  is  ever  to  be,  shall  become  strong  enough 
to  rout  one  or  both  of  the  existing  main  political 
parties,  and,  taking  the  control  of  the  Government 
in  their  hands,  shall  not  only  legally  consign  the 
liquor  traffic  to  its  coffin,  but  nail  it  down  with  a 
constitutional  amendment,  then  Mr.  Roosevelt's 
comparison  will  apply. 


CHAPTER   II 

THE  ABOLITIONISTS— WHO  AND  WHAT  THEY  WERE 

IN  selecting  those  who  are  to  receive  its  remem 
brance  and  its  honors,  the  world  has  always 
given  its  preference  to  such  as  have  battled  for  free 
dom.  It  may  have  been  with  the  sword ;  it  may 
have  been  with  the  pen ;  or  it  may  have  been  with 
a  tongue  that  was  inflamed  with  holy  rage  against 
tyranny  and  wrong;  but  whatever  the  instrumen 
tality  employed;  in  whatever  field  the  battle  has 
been  fought ;  and  by  whatsoever  race,  or  class,  or 
kind  of  men ;  the  champions  of  human  liberty  have 
been  hailed  as  the  bravest  of  the  brave  and  the  most 
worthy  to  receive  the  acclaims  of  their  fellows. 

Now,  if  that  estimate  be  not  altogether  inaccurate, 
what  place  in  the  scale  of  renown  must  be  assigned 
to  those  pioneers  in  the  successful  movement  against 
African  slavery  in  this  country  who  have  commonly 
been  known  as  "Abolitionists  " — a  name  first  given 
in  derision  by  their  enemies?  It  should,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  writer  hereof,  be  the  very  highest. 
Me  is  not  afraid  to  challenge  the  whole  record  of 
human  achievements  by  great  and  good  men  (always 
save  and  except  that  which  is  credited  to  the  Saviour 
of  mankind)  for  exhibitions  of  heroism  superior  to 
theirs.  Nay,  when  it  is  remembered  that  mainly 

15 


16  The  Abolitionists 

through  their  efforts  and  sacrifices  was  accomplished 
a  revolution  by  which  four  million  human  beings 
(but  for  the  Abolitionists  the  number  to-day  in 
bondage  would  be  eight  millions)  were  lifted  from 
the  condition  in  which  American  slaves  existed  but 
a  few  years  ago,  to  freedom  and  political  equality 
with  their  former  masters;  and,  at  the  same  time 
when  it  is  considered  what  qualities  of  heart  and 
brain  were  needed  for  such  a  task,  he  does  not  be 
lieve  that  history,  from  its  earliest  chapters,  fur 
nishes  examples  of  gods  or  men,  except  in  very  rare 
and  isolated  cases,  who  have  shown  themselves  to  be 
their  equals. 

In  the  matter  of  physical  courage  they  were  un 
surpassed,  unsurpassable.  A  good  many  of  them 
were  Quakers  and  non-resistants,  and  a  good  many 
of  them  were  women,  but  they  never  shrank  from 
danger  to  life  and  limb,  when  employed  in  their 
humanitarian  work.  Some  of  them  achieved  the 
martyr's  crown. 

In  the  matter  of  conscience  they  were  indomitable. 
Life  to  them  was  worth  less  than  principle. 

In  the  matter  of  money  they  were  absolutely  un 
selfish.  Those  of  them  who  were  poor,  as  the  most 
of  them  were,  toiled  on  without  the  hope  of  financial 
recompense.  They  did  their  work  not  only  without 
the  promise  or  prospect  of  material  reward  of  any 
kind,  but  with  the  certainty  of  pains  and  penalties 
that  included  the  ostracism  and  contempt  of  their 
fellows,  and  even  serious  risks  to  property  and  life. 

All  these  sacrifices  were  in  the  cause  of  human 
liberty;  but  of  liberty  for  whom?  That  is  the 
crucial  point.  In  all  ages  there  have  been  plenty  of 


Who  and  What  They  Were        17 

men  who  have  honorably  striven  for  liberty  for 
themselves.  Some  there  have  been  who  have  risen 
to  higher  planes.  We  have  an  example  in  La 
fayette.  He  fought  to  liberate  a  people  who  were 
foreign  in  language  and  blood ;  but  they  were  of  his 
own  color  and  the  peers  of  his  compatriots. 

TJhe  Abolitionists,  however,  espoused  the  cause, 
and  it  was  for  that  that  they  endured  so  much,  of 
creatures  that  were  infinitely  below  them;  of  beings 
who  had  ceased  to  be  recognized  as  belonging  to 
humanity,  and  were  classed  with  the  cattle  of  the 
field  and  other  species  of  "property."  So  low  were 
they  that  they  could  neither  appreciate  nor  return 
the  services  rendered  in  their  behalf.  For  their 
condition,  the  Abolitionists  were  in  no  sense  re 
sponsible.  They  had  no  necessary  fellowship  with 
the  unfortunates.  They  were  under  no  especial 
obligation  to  them.  They  were  not  of  the  same 
family.  It  was  even  doubted  whether  the  races  had 
a  common  origin.  And  yet,  to  the  end  of  securing 
release  for  these  wretched  victims  of  an  intolerable 
oppression,  not  a  few  of  them  dedicated  all  they 
possessed — life  not  cxcepted. 

True  it  is  that  they  had  no  monopoly  of  benevo 
lence.  Many  noble  men  and  women  have  gone  as 
missionaries  to  the  poor  and  benighted,  and  have 
sought  through  numerous  hardships  and  perils  to 
raise  up  those  who  have  been  trodden  in  the  dust. 
But,  as  a  rule,  their  services  have  been  rendered 
pursuant  to  a  secular  employment  that  carried 
financial  compensation,  and  behind  their  devotion 
to  the  poor  and  oppressed  has  been  the  expectation 
of  personal  reward  in  another  world,  if  not  in  this. 


1 8  The  Abolitionists 

But  such  motives  barely,  if  at  all,  influenced  the 
Abolitionists.  No  element  of  professionalism  en- 
tered  into  their  work.  They  were  not  particularly 
religious.  They  neither  very  greatly  reverenced 
nor  feared  the  Church,  whose  leaders  they  often 
accused  of  a  hankering  for  the  "flesh-pots  "  that  in 
duced  them  to  lead  their  followers  into  Egypt,  rather 

•  than  out  of  it.  They  were  partly  moved  by  a  hatred 
of  slavery  and  its  long  train  of  abuses  that  was  irre 
pressible,  and  which  to  most  persons  was  incompre 
hensible,  and  partly  by  a  love  for  their  fellows  in 
distress  that  was  so  insistent  as  to  make  them  forget 
themselves.  Their  impulses  seemed  to  be  largely 

^ntuitive,  if  not  instinctive,  and  if  called  upon  for  a 

(philosophical  explanation  they  could  not  have  given 

;it. 

In  such  a  struggle  for  freedom  and  natural  human 
rights  as  was  carried  on  by  the  Abolitionists  against 
tremendous  odds  and  through  a  term  covering  many 
long  years,  it  does  seem  to  the  writer  of  this  essay 
that  mortal  heroism  reached  its  height. 

Nor  am  I  by  any  means  alone  in  the  opinion  just 
expressed.  As  far  back  as  1844,  when  the  Abo 
litionists  were  few  in  number  and  the  objects  of 
almost  savage  persecution  in  every  part  of  our 
country,  the  Earl  of  Carlisle,  who,  in  his  day  was 
one  of  the  most  capable  leaders  of  British  public 
opinion,  declared  that  they  were  engaged  "in  fight 
ing  a  battle  without  a  parallel  in  the  history  of  an 
cient  or  modern  heroism." 

I  am  moved  to  write  the  story  of  the  Abolitionists, 
partly  because  it  is  full  of  romantic  interest,  and 
partly  because  justice  demands  it.  Those  doughty 


Who  and  What  They  Were        19 

file  leaders  in  the  Anti-Slavery  fight  do  not  to-day 
have  an  adequate  acknowledgment  of  the  obligations 
that  the  country  and  humanity  should  recognize  as 
belonging  to  them,  and  they  never  have  had  it. 
Much  of  the  credit  that  is  fairly  theirs  has  been  mis 
applied.  Writers  of  history  —  so  called,  although 
much  of  it  is  simple  eulogy — have  been  more  and 
more  inclined  to  attribute  the  overthrow  of  slavery 
to  the  efforts  of  a  few  men,  and  particularly  one 
man,  who,  after  long  opposition  to,  of  neglect  of,  the 
freedom  movement,  came  to  its  help  in  the  closing  \/ 
scenes  of  a  great  conflict,  while  the  earlier,  and  cer. 
tainly  equally  meritorious,  workers  and  fighters  have 
been  quite  left  out  of  the  account.  The  writer  does 
not  object  to  laborers  who  entered  the  field  at  the 
eleventh  hour,  sharing  with  those  who  bore  the  heat 
and  burden  of  the  day;  but  when  there  is  a  dispo 
sition  to  give  to  them  all  the  earnings  he  does  feel 
like  protesting. 

The  case  of  the  Abolitionists  is  not  overstated 
when  it  is  said  that,  but  for  their  labors  and  strug 
gles,  this  country,  instead  of  being  all  free,  would 
to-day  be  all  slaveholding.  The  relative  importance 
of  their  work  in  creating,  by  means  of  a  persistent 
agitation,  an  opposition  to  human  slavery  that  was 
powerful  enough  to  compel  the  attention  of  the 
public  and  force  the  machine  politicians,  after  long 
opposition,  to  admit  the  question  into  practical 
politics,  cannot  well  be  overestimated. 

They  alone  and  single-handed  fought  the  opening 
battles  of  a  great  war,  which,  although  overshadowed 
and  obscured  by  later  and  more  dramatic  events, 
were  none  the  less  gallantly  waged  and  nobly  won. 


20  The  Abolitionists 

It  is  customary  to  speak  of  our  Civil  War  as  a 
four  years'  conflict.  It  was  really  a  thirty  years' 
war,  beginning  when  the  pioneer  Abolitionists  en 
tered  the  field  and  declared  for  a  life-and-death 
struggle.  It  was  then  that  the  hardest  battles  were 
fought. 

I  write  the  more  willingly  because  comparatively 
few  now  living  remember  the  mad  excitement  of  the 
slavery  controversy  in  ante-bellum  days.  The  ma 
jority — the  living  and  the  working  masses  of  to-day 
— will,  doubtless,  be  gratified  to  have  accurate  pic 
tures  of  scenes  and  events  of  which  they  have  heard 
their  seniors  speak,  that  distinguished  the  most 
tempestuous  period  in  our  national  history — the  one 
in  which  the  wildest  passions  were  aroused  and  in 
dulged.  Then  it  was  that  the  fiercest  and  bitterest 
agitation  prevailed.  The  war  that  followed  did  not 
increase  this.  It  rather  modified  it — sobered  it  in 
view  of  the  crisis  at  hand — and  served  as  a  safety- 
valve  for  its  escape. 

For  the  same  reason,  the  general  public  has  now 
but  slight  comprehension  of  the  trials  endured  by 
the  Abolitionists  for  principle's  sake.  In  many 
ways  were  they  persecuted.  In  society  they  were 
tabooed ;  in  business  shunned.  By  the  rabble  they 
were  hooted  and  pelted.  Clowns  in  the  circus  made 
them  the  subjects  of  their  jokes.  Newspaper  scrib 
blers  lampooned  and  libelled  them.  Politicians  de 
nounced  them.  By  the  Church  they  were  regarded 
as  very  black  sheep,  and  sometimes  excluded  from 
the  fold.  And  this  state  of  things  lasted  for  years, 
during  which  they  kept  up  a  steady  agitation  with 
the  help  of  platform  lecturers,  and  regularly  threw 


Who  and  What  They  Were        21 

away  their  votes — so  it  was  charged — in  a  "third 
party  "  movement  that  seemed  to  be  a  hopeless 
venture. 

Another  inducement  to  the  writer  to  take  up  the 
cause  of  the  Abolitionists  is  the  fact  that  he  has  al 
ways  been  proud  to  class  himself  as  one  of  them. 
He  came  into  the  world  before  Abolitionism,  by 
that  name,  had  been  heard  of;  before  the  first  Abo 
lition  Society  was  organized ;  before  William  Lloyd 
Garrison  founded  his  Liberator •,  and  before  (not  the 
least  important  circumstance)  John  Quincy  Adams 
entered  Congress.  He  cannot  remember  when  the 
slavery  question  was  not  discussed.  His  sympathies 
at  an  early  day  went  out  to  the  slave.  He  informed 
himself  on  the  subject  as  well  as  a  farmer  boy  might 
be  expected  to  do  in  a  household  that  received  the 
most  of  its  knowledge  of  current  events  from  the 
columns  of  one  weekly  newspaper.  He  cast  his  first 
vote  for  the  ticket  of  the  Abolitionists  while  they 
were  yet  a  "third  party." 

The  community  in  which  he  then  lived,  although 
in  the  free  State  of  Ohio,  was  strongly  pro-slavery, 
being  not  far  from  the  Southern  border.  The  popu 
lation  was  principally  from  Virginia  and  Kentucky. 
There  were  a  few  Abolitionists,  and  they  occasion 
ally  tried  to  hold  public  meetings,  but  the  gather 
ings  were  always  broken  up  by  mobs. 

The  writer  very  well  remembers  the  satisfaction 
with  which  he,  as  a  schoolboy,  was  accustomed  to 
hear  that  there  was  to  be  another  Abolition  "turn 
out."  The  occasion  was  certain  to  afford  consider 
able  excitement  that  was  dear  to  the  heart  of  a  boy, 
and  it  had  another  recommendation.  The  only 


22  The  Abolitionists 

room  in  the  village — "town  "  we  called  it — for  such 
affairs,  except  the  churches,  which  were  barred 
against  "fanatics,"  was  the  district  schoolhouse, 
which,  by  common  consent,  was  open  to  all  comers, 
and  as  the  windows  and  doors,  through  which  mis 
siles  were  hurled  during  Anti-Slavery  gatherings, 
were  always  more  or  less  damaged,  "we  boys" 
usually  got  a  holiday  or  two  while  the  building  was 
undergoing  necessary  repairs. 

As  might  be  surmised,  the  lessons  I  learned  at 
school  were  not  all  such  as  are  usually  acquired  at 
such  institutions.  My  companions  were  like  other 
children,  full  of  spirit  and  mischief,  and  not  without 
their  prejudices.  They  hated  Abolitionists  because 
they — the  Abolitionists — wanted  to  compel  all  white 
people  to  marry  "niggers."  Although  not  naturally 
unkind,  they  did  not  always  spare  the  feelings  of 
"the  son  of  an  old  Abolitionist."  We  had  our 
arguments.  Some  of  them  were  of  the  knock-down 
kind.  In  more  than  one  shindy,  growing  out  of  the 
discussion  of  the  great  question  of  the  day,  I  suffered 
the  penalty  of  a  bloody  nose  or  a  blackened  eye  for 
standing  up  for  my  side. 

The  feeling  against  the  negroes'  friends  —  the 
Abolitionists — was  not  confined  to  children  in  years. 
It  was  present  in  all  classes.  It  entered  State  and 
Church  alike,  and  dominated  both  of  them.  The 
Congressional  Representative  from  the  district  in 
which  I  lived  in  those  days  was  an  able  man  and 
generally  held  in  high  esteem.  He  made  a  speech 
in  our  village  when  a  candidate  for  re-election.  In 
discussing  the  slavery  question  —  everybody  dis 
cussed  it  then — he  spoke  of  the  negroes  as  being  "on 


Who  arid  What  They  Were        23 

the  same  footing  with  other  cattle."  I  remember 
the  expression  very  well  because  it  shocked  me,  boy 
that  I  was.  It  did  not  disturb  the  great  majority 
of  those  present,  however.  They  cheered  the  senti 
ment  and  gave  their  votes  for  the  speaker,  who  was 
re-elected  by  a  large  majority. 

About  the  same  time  I  happened  to  be  present 
where  a  General  Assembly  of  one  of  our  largest  re 
ligious  denominations  was  in  session,  and  listened 
to  part  of  an  address  by  a  noted  divine — the  most 
distinguished  man  in  the  body — which  was  intended 
to  prove  that  slavery  was  an  institution  existing  by 
biblical  authority.  He  spent  two  days  in  a  talk  that 
was  mostly  made  up  of  scriptural  texts  and  his 
commentaries  upon  them.  This  was  in  Ohio,  and 
there  was  not  a  slave-owner  in  the  assembly,  and  yet 
a  resolution  commendatory  of  the  views  that  had 
just  been  declared  by  the  learned  doctor,  was 
adopted  by  an  almost  unanimous  vote. 

In  the  neighborhood  in  which  I  lived  was  an  old 
and  much  respected  clergyman  who  was  called  upon 
to  preach  a  sermon  on  a  day  of  some  national  sig 
nificance.  He  made  it  the  occasion  for  a  florid 
panegyric  upon  American  institutions,  which,  he  de 
clared,  assured  freedom  to  all  men.  Here  he  paused, 
"When  I  spoke  of  all  men  enjoying  freedom  under 
our  flag/'  he  resumed,  "I  did  not,  of  course,  include 
the  Ethiopians  whom  Providence  has  brought  to  our 
shores  for  their  own  good  as  well  as  ours.  They 
are  slaves  by  a  divine  decree.  \  As  descendants  of 
Ham,  they  are  under  a  curse  that  makes  them  the 
servants  of  their  more  fortunate  white  brethren." 
Having  thus  put  himself  right  on  the  record,  he 


24  The  Abolitionists 

proceeded  with  his  sermon.    No  one  seemed  to  take 
exception  to  what  he  said. 

In  the  same  neighborhood  was  a  young  preacher 
who  had  shortly  before  come  into  it  from  somewhere 
farther  North.  In  the  course  of  one  of  his  regular 
services  he  offered  up  a  prayer  in  which  he  expressed 
the  hope  that  the  good  Lord  would  find  a  way  to 
break  the  bands  of  all  who  were  in  bondage.  That 
smacked  of  Abolitionism  and  at  once  there  was  a 
commotion.  The  minister  was  asked  to  explain. 
This  he  declined  to  do,  saying  that  his  petition  was 
a  matter  between  him  and  his  God,  and  he  denied 
the  right  of  others  to  question  him.  That  only  in 
creased  the  opposition,  and  in  a  short  time  the 
spunky  young  man  was  compelled  to  resign  his 
charge. 

About  that  time  there  appeared  a  lecturer  on 
slavery — which  meant  against  slavery — who  carried 
credentials  showing  that  he  was  a  clergyman  in  good 
standing  in  one  of  the  leading  Protestant  denomina 
tions.  In  our  village  was  a  church  of  that  persua 
sion,  whose  pastor  was  not  an  Abolitionist.  As  in 
duty  bound,  the  visiting  brother  called  on  his  local 
fellow-laborer,  and  informed  him  that  on  the  follow 
ing  day,  which  happened  to  be  Sunday,  he  would 
be  pleased  to  attend  service  at  his  church.  On  the 
morrow  he  was  on  hand  and  occupied  a  seat  directly 
in  front  of  the  pulpit ;  but,  notwithstanding  his  con- 
spicuousness,  the  home  minister,  who  should,  out  of 
courtesy,  have  invited  him  to  a  seat  in  the  pulpit,  if 
to  no  other  part  in  the  services,  never  saw  him.  He 
looked  completely  over  his  head,  keeping  his  eyes, 
all  through  the  exercises,  fixed  upon  the  back  pews, 


Who  and  What  They  Were        25 

which  happened,  on   that  occasion,  to  be  chiefly 
unoccupied. 

Such  incidents,  of  themselves,  were  of  no  great 
importance.  Their  significance  was  in  the  fact  that 
they  all  occurred  on  the  soil  of  a  free  State.  They 
showed  the  state  of  feeling  that  then  and  there 
existed. 


CHAPTER   III 

ONE  OF  THEIR  TRAITS 

THE  writer  has  spoken  of  the  courage  of  the 
Abolitionists.  There  is  another  trait  by  which 
they  were  distinguished  that,  in  his  opinion,  should 
not  be  passed  over.  That  was  their  extreme 
hopefulness — their  untiring  confidence.  No  matter 
how  adverse  were  the  conditions,  they  expected  to 
win.  They  never  counted  the  odds  against  them. 
They  trusted  in  the  right  which  they  were  firmly 
persuaded  would  prevail  some  time  or  another.  For 
that  time  they  were  willing  to  wait,  meanwhile  doing 
what  they  could  to  hasten  its  coming. 

Benjamin  Lundy,  the  little  Quaker  mechanic,  who 
was  undeniably  the  Peter-the-Hermit  of  the  Abo 
litionist  movement,  when  setting  out  alone  and  on 
foot,  with  his  printing  material  on  his  back,  to  begin 
a  crusade  against  the  strongest  and  most  arrogant 
institution  in  the  country,  remarked  with  admirable 
naivete,  "I  do  not  know  how  soon  1  shall  succeed 
in  my  undertaking." 

William  Lloyd  Garrison,  when  the  pioneer  Anti- 
Slavery  Society  was  organized  by  only  twelve  men, 
and  they  people  of  no  worldly  consequence,  the 
meeting  for  lack  of  a  better  place  being  held  in  a 
colored  schoolroom  on  "Nigger  Hill"  in  Boston, 

26 


One  of  Their  Traits  27 

declared  that  in  due  time  they  would  meet  to  urge 
their  principles  in  Faneuil  Hall — a  most  audacious 
declaration,  but  he  was  right. 

The  writer,  when  a  boy,  was  witness  to  an  exhi 
bition  of  the  same  spirit.  A  kinsman  of  his  was  a 
zealous  Abolitionist,  although  not  particularly  gifted 
with  controversial  acumen.  He  and  his  minister,  as 
often  happened,  were  discussing  the  slavery  ques 
tion.  The  minister,  like  many  of  his  cloth  at  that 
time,  was  a  staunch  supporter  of  "the  institution," 
which,  according  to  his  contention,  firmly  rested  on 
biblical  authority. 

"How  do  you  expect  to  destroy  slavery,  as  it  ex 
ists  in  Kentucky,  by  talking  and  voting  abolition  up 
here  in  Ohio?"  asked  the  clergyman. 

"We  will  crush  it  through  Congress  when  we  get 
control  of  the  general  government,"  said  my  kins 
man. 

"But  Congress  and  the  general  government  have, 
under  the  Constitution,  absolutely  no  power  over 
slavery  in  the  States.  It  is  a  State  institution,"  re 
plied  the  clergyman. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  follow  the  discussion,  but, 
one  after  another,  the  quicker-witted  and  better- 
informed  preacher  successfully  combated  all  the 
propositions  advanced  by  my  relative  in  trying  to 
give  a  reason  for  the  faith  that  was  in  him,  until  he 
was  completely  cornered.  "Well,"  said  he  at  last, 
"the  good  Lord  has  not  taken  me  into  His  confi 
dence,  and  I  don't  know  what  His  plans  for  upset 
ting  slavery  are,  but  He  will  be  able  to  manage  it 
somehow." 

My  kinsman  lived  long  enough  to  see  the  day 


28  The  Abolitionists 

when  there  was  not  a  slave  on  American  soil,  and 
the  minister  lived  long  enough  to  become  a  roaring 
Abolitionist. 

It   was   doubtless   their   confidence    in    ultimate 
triumph,   a  result  of  their  absolute  belief   in   the 
righteousness  of  their  cause,  that,  as  much  as  any 
thing   else,   armed    and  armored  the  Abolitionists 
against  all  opposition.     It  was  one  main  element  of 
their  strength  in  the  midst  of  their  weakness.     With 
out  it  they  could  not  have  persisted,  as  they  did,  in 
their  separate  or  "third  party  "  political  action,  that 
cleared  the  way  and  finally  led  up  to  a  victorious 
organization.     Year  after  year,  and  for  many  years, 
they  voted  for  candidates  that  had  no  chance  of  elec 
tion.     Their  first  presidential  ticket  got  only  seven 
thousand  votes  in  the  whole  country.     The  great 
public,  which  could  not  see  the  use  of  acting  politi 
cally  for  principle  alone,  laughed  at  their  simplicity 
in  "throwing  away  their  votes."     "Voting  in  the 
air  "  was  the  way  it  was  often  spoken  of,  and  those 
who  were  guilty  of  such  incomprehensible  folly  were 
characterized  as  "one  idea  people."     They,  how 
ever,  cared  little  for  denunciation  or  ridicule,  and 
kept  on  regularly  nominating  their  tickets,  and  as 
regularly  giving  them  votes  that  generally  appeared 
in   the  election    returns   among  the   "scattering." 
They  were  not  abashed  by  the  insignificance  of  their 
party. 

"  They  were  men  who  dared  to  be 
In  the  right  with  two  or  three," 

according  to  the  poet  Lowell. 

In  the  county  in  which  I  lived  when  a  boy,  there 


One  of  Their  Traits  29 

was  one  vote  polled  for  the  first  Abolitionist  presi 
dential  ticket.  The  man  who  gave  it  did  not  try  to 
hide  his  responsibility — in  fact,  he  seemed  rather 
proud  of  his  aloneness —  but  he  was  mercilessly 
guyed  on  account  of  the  smallness  of  his  party. 
His  rejoinder  was  that  he  thought  that  he  and  God, 
who  was,  he  believed,  with  him,  made  a  pretty  good- 
sized  and  respectable  party. 


CHAPTER   IV 

PRO-SLAVERY   PREJUDICE 

'T'HE  intensity — perhaps  density  would  be  a  bet- 
1  ter  word  in  this  connection — of  the  prejudice 
that  confronted  the  Abolitionists  when  they  entered 
on  their  work  is  not  describable  by  any  expressions 
we  have  in  our  language.  In  the  South  it  was  soon 
settled  that  no  man  could  preach  Anti-Slaveryism 
and  live.  In  the  North  the  conditions  were  not 
much  better.  Every  man  and  woman — because  the 
muster-roll  of  the  Abolition  propagandists  was  re 
cruited  from  both  sexes — carried  on  the  work  at  the 
hazard  of  his  or  her  life.  Sneers,  scowls,  hootings, 
curses,  and  rough  handling  were  absolutely  certain. 
One  incident  throws  light  on  the  state  of  feeling  at 
that  time. 

When  Pennsylvania  Hall,  which  the  Abolitionists 
of  Philadelphia — largely  Quakers — had  erected  for 
a  meeting  place  at  a  cost  of  forty  thousand  dollars 
was  fired  by  a  mob,  the  fire  department  of  that  city 
threw  water  on  surrounding  property,  but  not  one 
drop  would  it  contribute  to  save  the  property  of  the 
Abolitionists. 

Why  was  it  that  this  devotion  to  slavery  and  this 
hostility  to  its  opposers  prevailed  in  the  non-slave- 
holding  States?  They  had  not  always  existed.  In- 

3" 


Pro-Slavery  Prejudice  31 

deed,  there  was  a  time,  not  so  many  years  before, 
when  slavery  was  generally  denounced ;  when  men 
like  Washington  and  Jefferson  and  Henry,  although 
themselves  slave-owners,  led  public  opinion  in  its 
condemnation.  Everybody  was  anticipating  the 
day  of  universal  emancipation,  when  suddenly  — 
almost  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye  —  there  was  a 
change.  If  it  had  been  a  weather-cock — as  to  a 
considerable  extent  it  was,  and  is — public  opinion 
could  not  have  more  quickly  veered  about. 

Slavery  became  the  popular  idol  in  the  North  as 
well  as  in  the  South.     Opposition  to  it  was  not  only  . 
offensive,  but  dangerous.     It  was  sacrilege. 

Sojar  as  the  South  was  concerned  the  revolution 
is  easily  accounted  for.  Slavery  became  profitable. 
A  Yankee  magician  had  touched  it  with  a  wand  of 
gold,  and  from  being  a  languishing,  struggling  sys 
tem,  it  quickly  developed  into  a  money-maker. 

Whitney,  the  Connecticut  mechanical  genius,  by 
the  invention  of  the  cotton-gin,  made  the  produc 
tion  of  cotton  a  highly  lucrative  industry.  The  price 
of  negroes  to  work  the  cotton  fields  at  once  went 
up,  and  yet  the  supply  was  inadequate.  Northernly 
slave  States  could  not  produce  cotton,  but  they 
could  produce  negroes.  They  shared  in  the  golden 
harvest.  Such  cities  as  Baltimore,  Washington, 
Richmond,  Wheeling,  and  Louisville  became  centers 
of  a  flourishing  traffic  in  human  beings.  They  had 
great  warehouses,  commonly  spoken  of  as  "nigger 
pens,"  in  which  the  "hands"  that  were  to  make 
the  cotton  were  temporarily  gathered,  and  long 
coffles— that  is,  processions  of  men  and  women, 
each  with  a  hand  attached  to  a  common  rope  or 


32  The  Abolitionists 

chain — marched  through  their  streets  with  faces 
turned  southward. 

The  slave-owners  were  numerically  a  lean  minority 
even  in  the  South,  but  their  mastery  over  their  fel 
low-citizens  was  absolute.  Nor  was  there  any  mys 
tery  about  it.  As  the  owners  of  four  million  slaves, 
on  an  average  worth  not  far  from  five  hundred  dol 
lars  each,  they  formed  the  greatest  industrial  com 
bination — what  at  this  time  we  would  call  a  trust — 
ever  known  to  this  or  any  other  country.  Our 
mighty  Steel  Corporation  would  have  been  a  baby 
beside  it.  If  to-day  all  our  great  financial  companies 
were  consolidated,  the  unit  would  scarcely  come  up 
to  the  dimensions  of  that  one  association.  It  was 
not  incorporated  in  law,  but  its  union  was  perfect. 
Bound  together  by  a  common  interest  and  a  com 
mon  feeling,  its  members — in  the  highest  sense  co 
partners  in  business  and  in  politics,  in  peace  and  in 
war — were  prepared  to  act  together  as  one  man. 

But  why,  I  again  ask,  were  the  Northern  people 
so  infatuated  with  slavery?  They  raised  no  cotton 
and  they  raised  no  negroes,  but  many  of  them,  and 
especially  their  political  leaders,  carried  their  adula 
tion  almost  to  idolatry. 

When  Elijah  P.  Lovejoy  was  shot  down  like  a 
dog,  and  William  Lloyd  Garrison  was  dragged  half 
naked  and  half  lifeless  through  the  streets  of  Boston, 
and  other  outrages  of  like  import  were  being  perpe 
trated  all  over  the  North,  it  was  carefully  given  out 
that  those  deeds  were  not  the  work  of  irresponsible 
rowdies,  but  of  "gentlemen" — of  merchants,  manu 
facturers,  and  members  of  the  professions.  They 
claimed  the  credit  for  such  achievements. 


Pro-Slavery  Prejudice  33 

There  were  reasons  for  such  a  state  of  things — 
some  very  solid,  because  financial. 

The  North  and  the  South  were  extensively  inter 
laced  by  mutual  interests.  With  slave  labor  the 
Southern  planters  made  cotton,  and  with  the  pro 
ceeds  of  their  cotton  they  bought  Northern  ma 
chinery  and  merchandise.  They  sent  their  boys  and 
girls  to  Northern  schools.  They  came  North  them 
selves  when  their  pockets  were  full,  and  freely  spent 
their  money  at  Northern  hotels,  Northern  theatres, 
Northern  race-tracks,  and  other  Northern  places  of 
entertainment. 

Then  there  were  other  ties  than  those  of  business. 
The  great  political  parties  had  each  a  Southern  wing. 
Religious  denominations  had  their  Southern  mem 
bers.  Every  kind  of  trade  and  calling  had  its 
Southern  outlet. 

But  social  connections  were  the  strongest  of  all, 
and  probably  had  most  to  do  in  making  Northern 
sentiment.  Southern  gentlemen  were  popular  in 
the  North.  They  spent  money  lavishly.  Their 
manners  were  grandiose.  They  talked  boastfully  of 
the  number  of  their  "niggers,"  and  told  how  they 
were  accustomed  to  "wallop"  them. 

Then  there  were  marriage  ties  between  the  sec 
tions.  Many  domestic  alliances  strengthened  the 
bond  between  slavery  and  the  aristocracy  of  the 
North. 

In  the  circles  in  which  these  things  were  going 
on,  it  was  the  fashion  to  denounce  the  Abolitionists. 
Women  were  the  most  bitter.  The  slightest  sus 
picion  of  sympathy  with  the  "fanatics"  was  fatal  to 
social  ambition.  Mrs.  Henry  Chapman,  the  wife  of 


34  The  Abolitionists 

a  wealthy  Boston  shipping  merchant  who  gave  orders 
that  no  slaves  should  be  carried  on  his  vessels,  was 
a  brilliant  woman  and  a  leader  in  the  highest  sense 
in  that  city.  But  when  she  consented  to  preside 
over  a  small  conference  of  Anti-Slavery  women,  so 
ciety  cut  her  dead,  her  former  associates  refusing  to 
recognize  her  on  the  street.  The  families  of  Arthur 
and  Lewis  Tuppan,  the  distinguished  merchants  of 
New  York,  were  noted  for  their  intelligence  and 
culture,  but  when  the  heads  of  the  families  came  to 
be  classified  as  Abolitionists  the  doors  of  all  fashion 
able  mansions  were  at  once  shut  against  them. 
They  in  other  ways  suffered  for  their  opinions. 
The  home  of  Lewis  Tappan  was  invaded  by  a  mob, 
and  furniture,  books,  and  bric-a-brac  were  carried  to 
the  street  and  there  burned  to  ashes. 

The  masses  of  the  Northern  people  were,  how 
ever,  led  to  favor  slavery  by  other  arguments.  One 
of  them  was  that  the  slaves,  if  manumitted,  would 
at  once  rush  to  the  North  and  overrun  the  free 
States.  I  have  heard  that  proposition  warmly  sup 
ported  by  fairly  intelligent  persons. 

Another  argument  that  weighed  with  a  surpris 
ingly  large  number  of  people,  was  that  civil  equality 
would  be  followed  by  social  equality.  As  soon  as 
they  were  free,  negro  men,  it  was  said,  would  marry 
white  wives.  "Do  you  want  your  son  or  your 
daughter  to  marry  a  nigger?"  was  regarded  as  a 
knockout  anti-Abolitionist  argument.  The  idea,  of 
course,  was  absurd.  "Is  it  to  be  inferred  that  be 
cause  I  don't  want  a  negro  woman  for  a  slave,  I  do 
want  her  for  a  wife?"  was  one  of  the  quaint  and 
pithy  observations  attributed  to  Mr.  Lincoln.  I 


Pro-Slavery  Prejudice  35 

heard  Prof.  Hudson,  of  Oberlin  College,  express 
the  same  idea  in  about  the  same  words  many  years 
before. 

And  yet  there  were  plenty  of  Northern  people  to 
whom  "Amalgamation" — the  word  used  to  describe 
the  apprehended  union  of  the  races — was  a  veritable 
scarecrow.  A  young  gentleman  in  a  neighborhood 
near  where  I  lived  when  a  boy  was  in  all  respects 
eligible  for  matrimony.  He  became  devoted  to  the 
daughter  of  an  old  farmer  who  had  been  a  Kentuc- 
kian,  and  asked  him  for  her  hand.  "But  I  am  told," 
said  the  old  gentleman,  "that  you  arc  an  Aboli 
tionist.  ' '  The  young  man  admitted  the  justice  of  the 
charge.  "Then,  sir,"  fairly  roared  the  old  man,  "you 
can't  have  my  daughter;  go  and  marry  a  nigger." 

But  what  probably  gave  slavery  its  strongest  hold 
upon  the  favor  of  Northern  people  was  the  animosity 
toward  the  negro  that  prevailed  among  them.  No 
where  was  he  treated  by  them  like  a  human  being. 
The  "black  laws,"  as  those  statutes  in  a  number  of 
free  States  that  regulated  the  treatment  of  the  blacks 
were  appropriately  called,  were  inhuman  in  the  ex 
treme.  Ohio  was  in  the  main  a  liberal  State.  She 
was  called  a  free  State,  but  her  negroes  were  not 
free  men.  Under  her  laws  they  could  only  remain 
in  the  State  by  giving  bonds  for  good  behavior. 
Any  one  employing  negroes,  not  so  bonded,  was 
liable  to  a  fine  of  one  hundred  dollars.  They  could 
not  vote,  of  course.  They  could  not  testify  in  a 
case  in  which  a  white  man  was  interested.  They 
could  not  send  their  children  to  schools  which  they 
helped  to  support.  The  only  thing  they  could  do 
"like  a  white  man"  was  to  pay  taxes. 


36  The  Abolitionists 

The  prejudice  against  the  poor  creatures  in  Ohio 
was  much  stronger  than  that  they  encountered  on 
the  other  side  of  the  Ohio  River  in  the  slave  State 
of  Kentucky.  Here  —  in  Kentucky  —  they  were 
property,  and  they  generally  received  the  care  and 
consideration  that  ownership  ordinarily  establishes. 
The  interest  of  the  master  was  a  factor  in  their  be 
half.  In  many  instances  there  was  genuine  affection 
between  owner  and  slave.  "How  much  better  off 
they  would  be  if  they  only  had  good  masters,"  was 
a  remark  I  very  often  heard  in  Ohio,  as  the  negroes 
would  go  slouching  by  with  hanging  heads  and 
averted  countenances.  There  is  no  doubt  that  at 
this  time  the  physical  condition  of  the  blacks  was 
generally  much  better  in  slavery  than  it  was  in  free 
dom.  What  stronger  testimony  to  the  innate  desire 
for  liberty  —  what  Byron  has  described  as  "The 
eternal  spirit  of  the  chainless  mind  " — than  the  fact 
that  slaves  who  were  the  most  indulgently  treated, 
were  constantly  escaping  from  the  easy  and  careless 
life  they  led  to  the  hostilities  and  barbarities  of  the 
free  States,  and  they  never  went  back  except  under 
compulsion. 

"  O  carry  me  back  to  old  Virginy, 
To  old  Virginy's  shore," 

was  the  refrain  of  a  song  that  was  very  popular  in 
those  days,  and  which  was  much  affected  by  what 
were  called  "negro  minstrels."  It  was  assumed  to 
express  the  feelings  of  colored  fugitives  from  bond 
age  when  they  had  time  to  realize  what  freedom 
meant  in  their  cases,  but  I  never  heard  the  words 


Pro-Slavery  Prejudice  37 

from  the  lips  of  a  man  who  had  lived  in  a  state  of 
servitude. 

I  have  elsewhere  referred  to  the  fact  that  women 
were  often  the  most  bitter  in  their  denunciations  of 
the  Abolitionists.  In  the  neighborhood  in  which  I 
passed  my  early  days  was  a  lady  who  was  born  and 
raised  in  the  North,  and  who  probably  had  no  de 
cided  sentiment,  one  way  or  the  other,  on  the 
slavery  question ;  but  who  about  this  time  spent 
several  months  in  a  visit  to  one  of  the  slave  States. 
She  came  back  thoroughly  imbued  with  admiration 
for  "the  institution."  She  could  not  find  words  to 
describe  the  good  times  that  were  enjoyed  by  the 
wives  and  daughters  of  the  slave-owners.  They 
had  nothing  to  do  except  to  take  the  world  easy, 
and  that,  according  to  her  account,  they  did  with 
great  unanimity.  The  slaves,  were,  she  declared, 
the  happiest  people  in  the  world,  all  care  and 
responsibility  being  taken  from  their  shoulders  by 
masters  who  were  kind  enough  to  look  out  for  their 
wants. 

But  one  day  she  unwittingly  exposed  a  glimpse 
of  the  reverse  side  of  the  picture.  She  told  the 
story  of  a  young  slave  girl  who  had  been  accused  of 
larceny.  She  had  picked  up  some  trifling  article 
that  ordinarily  no  one  would*  have  cared  anything 
about;  but  at  this  time  it  was  thought  well  to  make 
an  example  of  somebody.  The  wrists  of  the  poor 
creature  were  fastened  together  by  a  cord  that 
passed  through  a  ring  in  the  side  of  the  barn,  which 
had  been  put  there  for  that  purpose,  and  she  was 
drawn  up,  with  her  face  to  the  building,  until  her 
toes  barely  touched  the  ground.  Then,  in  the 


38  The  Abolitionists 

presence  of  all  her  fellow-slaves,  and  with  her  cloth 
ing  so  detached  as  to  expose  her  naked  shoulders, 
she  was  flogged  until  the  blood  trickled  down  her 
back. 

"I  felt  almost  as  bad  for  her,"  said  the  narrator, 
"as  if  she  had  been  one  of  my  own  kind." 

"Thank  God  she  was  not  one  of  your  kind!  "  ex 
claimed  a  voice  that  fairly  sizzled  with  rage. 

The  speaker  who  happened  to  be  present  was  a 
relative  of  the  author  and  a  red-hot  Abolitionist. 

Then  came  a  furious  war  of  words,  the  two  en 
raged  women  shouting  maledictions  in  each  other's 
faces.  As  a  boy,  I  enjoyed  the  performance  hugely 
until  I  began  to  see  that  there  was  danger  of  a  col 
lision.  As  the  only  male  present,  it  would  be  my 
duty  to  interfere  in  case  the  combatants  came  to 
blows,  or  rather  to  scratches  and  hair-pulling.  I 
did  not  like  the  prospect,  which  seemed  to  me  to  be 
really  alarming,  and  was  thinking  of  some  peaceable 
solution,  when  the  two  women,  looking  into  each 
other's  inflamed  faces,  suddenly  realized  the  ridicu 
lousness  of  the  situation  and  broke  into  hearty  peals 
of  laughter.  That,  of  course,  ended  Uie  contro 
versy,  not  a  little  to  the  relief  of  the  writer. 

If  the  influence  of  a  great  majority  of  the  women 
of  that  day  was  thrown  on  the  side  of  slavery,  as 
was  undoubtedly  the  case,  the  minority  largely  made 
up  for  the  disparity  of  numbers  by  the  spunk  and 
aggressiveness  of  their  dc'inonstrations.  A  good 
many  of  the  most  indomitable  and  effective  Abolition 
lecturers  were  women — such  as  Mrs.  Lucretia  Mott, 
the  Grimk£  sisters,  Abby  Kelly,  and  others  whose 
names  are  here  omitted,  although  they  richly  deserve 


Pro-Slavery  Prejudice  39 

to  be  mentioned.  Of  all  that  sisterhood,  the  most 
pugnacious  undoubtedly  was  Abby  Kelly,  a  little 
New  England  woman,  with,  as  the  name  would  in 
dicate,  an  Irish  crossing  of  the  blood.  I  heard  her 
once,  and  it  seemed  to  me  that  I  never  listened  to  a 
tongue  that  was  so  sharp  and  merciless.  Her  eyes 
were  small  and  it  appeared  to  me  that  they  con 
tracted,  when  she  was  speaking,  until  they  emitted 
sparks  of  fire.  Although  she  went  by  her  maiden 
name,  she  was  a  married  woman,  being  the  wife  of 
Stephen  Foster,  a  professional  Abolitionist  agitator 
and  lecturer.  Although  himself  noted  for  the  bit 
terness  of  his  speech,  when  it  came  to  hard-hitting 
vituperation  he  could  not  begin  to  "hold  a  candle  " 
to  his  little  wife. 

The  two  traveled  together  and  spoke  from  the 
same  platforms.  They  were  constantly  getting  into 
hot  water  through  the  hostility  of  mobs,  which  they 
seemed  to  enjoy  most  heartily.  Foster's  life  was 
more  than  once  in  serious  danger,  but  they  kept 
right  on  and  never  showed  the  slightest  fear.  The 
only  meeting  addressed  by  them  that  I  attended, 
though  held  on  the  Sabbath,  was  ended  by  the 
throwing  of  stones  and  sticks  and  addled  eggs. 

But  if  the  current  of  public  opinion  in  the  North 
suddenly  turned,  and  for  a  long  time  ran  with  over 
whelming  force  in  favor  of  slavery,  it  changed  about 
almost  as  suddenly  and  ran  with  equal  force  in  the 
opposite  direction.  The  county  in  which  I  lived 
when  a  boy,  that  furnished  only  one  vote  for  the 
first  Abolitionist  presidential  ticket,  became  a  Re 
publican  stronghold.  It  was  in  what  had  been  a 
Whig  district,  and  when  the  Whig  party  went  to 


40  The  Abolitionists 

pieces,  the  most  of  its  ctibris  drifted  into  the  Repub 
lican  lines. 

On  the  occasion  of  one  of  the  pro-slavery  mobs  I 
elsewhere  tell  about,  when  a  supply  of  eggs  with 
which  to  garnish  the  Abolitionists  was  wanted,  and 
the  money  for  their  purchase  was  called  for,  the 
town  constable — the  peace  officer  of  the  community 
— put  his  hand  in  his  pocket  and  supplied  the  funds. 

A  few  years  thereafter,  on  my  return  to  the  village 
after  a  considerable  absence,  I  found  that  I  had 
come  just  in  time  to  attend  a  Republican  rally 
which  was  that  day  to  be  held  in  a  near-by  grove. 
When  I  reached  the  scene  of  operations  a  procession 
to  march  to  the  grove  was  being  formed.  There 
was  considerable  enthusiasm  and  noise,  but  by  far 
the  most  excited  individual  was  the  Grand  Marshal 
and  Master  of  Ceremonies.  Seated  on  a  high  horse, 
he  was  riding  up  and  down  the  line  shouting  out  his 
orders  with  tremendous  unction.  He  was  the  con 
stable  of  the  egg-buying  episode. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  POLITICAL  SITUATION 

IN  several  of  his  addresses  before  his  election  to 
the  Presidency,  Mr.  Lincoln  gave  utterance  to 
the  following  language:  "A  house  divided  against 
itself  cannot  stand.  I  believe  this  Government  can 
not  permanently  remain  half  slave  and  half  free.  I 
do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall,  but  I  do  expect  it 
to  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing 
or  all  the  other  thing." 

The  same  opinion  had  been  enunciated  several 
years  before  by  John  Quincy  Adams  on  the  floor 
of  Congress,  when,  with  his  accustomed  pungency, 
he  declared,  "The  Union  will  fall  before  slavery  or 
slavery  will  fall  before  the  Union." 

But  before  either  Adams  or  Lincoln  spoke  on  the 
subject — away  back  in  1838— the  same  idea  they  ex 
pressed  had  a  more  elaborate  and  forcible  presenta 
tion  in  the  following  words: 

"  The  conflict  is  becoming — has  become — not  alone  of 
freedom  for  the  blacks,  but  of  freedom  for  the  whites. 
It  has  now  become  absolutely  necessary  that  slavery  shall 
cease  in  order  that  freedom  may  be  preserved  in  any 
portion  of  our  land.  The  antagonistic  principles  of 
liberty  and  slavery  have  been  roused  into  action,  and 
one  or  the  other  must  be  victorious.  There  will  be  no 

41 


42  The  Abolitionists 

cessation  of  the  strife  until  slavery  shall  be  exterminated 
or  liberty  destroyed." 

The  author  of  the  words  last  above  quoted  was 
James  Gillespie  Birney,  who  was  the  first  Abolition 
ist,  or  "Liberty  party,"  candidate  for  the  Presi 
dency,  and  of  whose  career  a  brief  sketch  is  elsewhere 
given. 

That  the  slaveholders  reached  the  same  conclusion 
that  Birney  and  Adams  and  Lincoln  announced, 
viz.,  that  the  country  was  to  be  all  one  thing  or  all 
the  other  thing,  is  as  manifest  as  any  fact  in  our 
history.  It  is  equally  certain  that  they  had  firmly 
resolved  to  capture  the  entire  commonwealth  for 
their  "institution,"  and  had  laid  their  plans  to  that 
end.  They  were  unwilling  to  live  in  a  divided 
house,  particularly  with  an  occupant  who  was 
stronger  in  population  and  wealth  than  they  were. 
They  saw  the  danger  in  such  association.  Northern 
sentiment  toward  slavery  was  complacent  enough, 
even  servilely  so,  but  it  might  change.  The  South 
thought  it  had  too  much  at  stake  to  take  the  chances 
when  the  opportunity  for  absolute  safety  and  per 
manent  rule  was  within  its  reach.  It  resolved  to 
make  the  whole  country,  not  only  pro-slavery,  but 
slaveholding.  If,  through  any  mischance,  it  failed 
in  its  calculation,  the  next  step  would  be  to  tear 
down  the  house  and  from  .its  ruins  reconstruct  so 
much  of  it  as  might  be  needed  for  its  own  occu 
pancy.  That  it  would  be  able  in  time  to  possess 
itself  of  the  whole  country,  however,  for  and  in  be 
half  of  its  industrial  policy,  it  did  not  for  an  instant 
doubt.  It  was  not  empty  braggadocio  on  the  part 


The  Political  Situation  43 

of  the  celebrated  Robert  Toombs,  of  Georgia,  when 
he  uttered  his  famous  boast.1  He  voiced  the  prac 
tically  unanimous  opinion  of  his  section. 

Nor  was  there  anything  seemingly  very  presump 
tuous  in  that  anticipation.  So  far,  the  South  had 
been  invariably  victorious.  In  what  appeared  to  be 
a  decisive  battle  in  the  test  case  of  admitting  Mis 
souri  into  the  Union  as  a  slave  State,  it  had  won. 
So  pronounced  was  its  triumph  that  whatever  Anti- 
Slavery  sentiment  survived  the  conflict  appeared  to 
be  stunned  and  helpless.  All  fight  was  knocked  out 
of  it.  Its  spirit  was  broken.  While  the  South  was 
not  only  compact  and  fully  alive,  but  exultingly 
aggressive,  the;  North  was  divided,  fully  one  half  of 
its  population  being  about  as  pro-slavery  as  the 
slaveholders  themselves,  and  the  rest,  with  rare  ex 
ceptions,  being  hopelessly  apathetic.  The  Northern 
leaders  of  both  of  the  old  political  parties — Whig 
and  Democratic — were  what  the  Abolitionists  called 
"dough-faces,"  being  Northern  men  with  Southern 
principles.  The  Church  was  "a  dumb  dog,"  and 
the  press  simply  drifted  with  the  tide.  It  was  not 
at  all  strange  that  the  slaveholders  expected  to  go 
on  from  conquest  to  conquest. 

There  were  two  policies  they  could  adopt.  One 
was  to  attack  the  enemy's  citadel;  or  rather,  the 
several  citadels  it  possessed  in  its  individual  States, 
and  force  them  to  open  their  doors  to  the  master 
and  his  human  chattels.  The  other  was  to  flank  and 
cover,  approaching  the  main  point  of  attack  by  way 
of  the  Territories.  These,  once  in  possession  of 
the  slaveholders,  could  be  converted  into  enough 
lSec  page  13. 


44  The  Abolitionists 

slave  States  to  give  them  the  control  of  the  general 
government,  from  which  coigne  of  advantage  they 
could  proceed  in  their  own  time  and  way  to  possess 
themselves  of  such  other  free  States  as  they  might 
want. 

In  the  matter  of  the  Territories  they  had  a  great 
advantage.  The  North  was  up  against  a  stone  wall 
at  the  Canadian  border.  In  that  direction  it  could 
not  advance  a  step,  while  the  South  had  practically 
an  unlimited  field  on  its  side  from  which  to  carve 
possessions  as  they  might  be  wanted,  very  much  as 
you  would  cut  a  pie. 

In  pursuance  of  its  territorial  policy — being  the 
line  of  action  it  first  resolved  upon — the  first  move 
ment  of  the  South  was  to  annex  Texas — a  victory. 
The  next  was  to  make  war  on  Mexico,  and  (a  joke 
of  the  day)  conquer  a  "piece"  from  it  large  enough 
to  make  half  a  dozen  States,  all  expected  to  be 
slaveholding — another  victory. 

By  a  curious  irony  the  filching  of  land  for  slavery's 
uses  from  a  neighbor,  and  on  which  the  foot  of  a 
slave  had  never  pressed,  was  exultingly  spoken  of  at 
the  time  by  its  supporters  as  "an  extension  of  the 
area  of  freedom."  The  act  was  justified  on  the 
ground  that  we  needed  "land  for  the  landless," 
which  led  Benjamin  F.  Wade  of  Ohio  to  assert  on 
the  floor  of  the  United  States  Senate,  with  as  much 
truth  as  wit,  that  it  was  not  land  for  the  landless 
that  was  wanted,  but  "niggers  for  the  niggerless." 

Then  came  the  battle  over  Kansas.  The  passage 
of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill  in  Congress,  although 
involving  a  breach  of  good  faith  on  the  part  of  the 
South,  was  hailed  as  another  victory  for  that  sec- 


The  Political  Situation  45 

tion.  It  was  a  costly  victory.  It  was  followed  by 
defeat  not  only  disastrous  but  fatal.  The  result  in 
Kansas  was  really  the  turning-point  in  the  great 
struggle.  It  broke  the  line  of  Southern  victories. 
It  neutralized  the  effect  of  the  whole  territorial 
movement  up  to  that  point.  It  completely  spoiled 
the  slaveholders'  well-laid  plans.  We  will  always 
give  Grant  and  his  men  all  praise  for  victories  lead 
ing  up  to  Appomatox,  but,  in  some  respects,  the 
most  important  victory  of  the  great  conflict  was  won 
on  the  plains  of  Kansas  by  John  Brown  of  Ossawat- 
tomie  and  his  Abolition  associates. 

The  most  sagacious  Southern  leaders  saw  in  that 
result  conclusive  proof  that  the  scale  was  turned. 
They  realized  that  they  were  beaten  within  the  lines 
of  the  Union,  and  they  began  to  arrange  for  going 
out  of  it.  They  helped  to  elect  a  Republican  Presi 
dent  by  dividing  the  Democratic  party  in  1860  be 
tween  two  candidates — Douglas  and  Breckenridge — 
in  order  that  they  might  have  a  plausible  pretext  for 
secession. 

But  the  slaveholders  had  not  abandoned  the  other 
policy  to  which  reference  has  been  made — that  of 
carrying  their  institution,  by  main  force,  as  it  were, 
into  some,  if  not  all,  of  the  free  States.  To  that 
end  they  had,  in  sporting  parlance,  a  card  up  their 
sleeves  which  they  proceeded  to  play.  That  card 
was  the  decision  of  the  United  States  Supreme 
Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  upon  which  they  re 
lied  to  give  them  the  legal  power  to  take  and  hold 
their  slaves  in  all  parts  of  the  land.  Up  to  the  date 
of  that  decision,  the  current  of  judicial  rulings  had 
been  that  slavery,  being  a  municipal  institution, 


46  The  Abolitionists 

was  local,  while  freedom  was  national.  Hence, 
when  a  master  took  his  slave  into  a  free  State,  at 
that  instant  he  became  a  free  man.  The  Dred  Scott 
decision  was  intended  to  reverse  the  rule.  Practi 
cally  it  held  that  slave  ownership,  wherever  the 
Constitution  prevailed,  was  both  a  legal  and  a  nat 
ural  right.  It,  as  Benton  forcibly  expressed  it, 
"made  slavery  the  organic  law  of  the  land  and  free 
dom  the  exception";  or,  as  it  was  jocularly  ex 
pressed  at  the  time,  it  left  freedom  nowhere. 

Although  at  the  time  of  its  promulgation,  it  was 
claimed  by  some  of  the  more  conservative  pro- 
slavery  leaders  that  the  Dred  Scott  dictum  applied 
only  to  the  Territories,  giving  the  masters  the  legal 
authority  to  enter  them  with  their  slaves,  that  posi 
tion  was  clearly  deceptive.  The  principle  involved, 
as  laid  down  by  the  Court,  was  altogether  too  broad 
for  that  construction.  In  effect  it  put  the  proprie 
torship  of  human  beings  upon  the  same  footing 
with  other  property  rights,  and  claimed  for  it  the 
same  constitutional  protection.  The  bolder  men  of 
the  South,  like  Toombs  of  Georgia,  did  not  hesitate 
to  give  that  interpretation  to  the  Court's  pronounce 
ment,  and  to  insist  on  it  with  brutal  frankness.  If 
they  were  wrong,  the  Court  was  putty  in  their  hands 
and  they  could  easily  have  had  a  supplemental  rul 
ing  that  would  have  gone  to  any  extent. 

If  the  Dred  Scott  decision  had  been  promulgated 
by  our  highest  court,  and  the  slaveholders  had  in 
sisted  upon  the  license  it  was  intended  to  give  them 
for  taking  their  slave  property  into  free  territory,  at 
the  time  that  Garrison  was  being  dragged  by  a  mob 
through  Boston's  streets;  when  Birncy's  printing- 


The  Political  Situation  47 

press  in  Cincinnati  was  being  tumbled  into  the  Ohio 
River;  when  Pennsylvania  Hall,  the  Quaker  Abo 
litionists'  forty-thousand-dollar  construction,  was 
ablaze  in  Philadelphia;  when  Lovejoy,  the  Aboli 
tion  martyr,  was  bleeding  out  his  life  in  one  of  the 
streets  of  Alton,  Illinois — when,  in  fact,  the  whole 
land  was  swayed  by  a  frenzied  hatred  of  the  men 
and  women  who  dared  to  question  slavery's  right  to 
supremacy,  the  writer  believes  the  movement  would 
have  been  successful.  Public  opinion  was  so  in 
clined  in  States  like  Indiana  and  Illinois,  and  even 
in  Ohio,  that  they  might  have  been  easily  toppled 
over  to  the  South.  Indeed,  at  that  time  it  is  a 
problem  how  Massachusetts  would  have  voted  on  a 
proposition  to  "  slavery ize"  her  soil.  The  surpris 
ing  thing,  as  we  look  back  to  that  period,  is  that 
slavery  did  not  get  a  foothold  in  some  of  the  free 
States,  if  not  in  all  of  them. 

But  by  the  time  the  South  was  ready  to  play  its 
trump  card,  it  was  too  late.  The  game  was  lost. 
Public  opinion  had  become  revolutionized  through 
out  the  North.  The  leaven  of  Abolitionism  had 
got  in  its  work.  The  men  and  women,  few  in  num 
ber  and  weak  in  purse  and  worldly  position  as  they 
were,  who  had  enlisted  years  before  in  the  cause  of 
emancipation,  and  had  fought  for  it  in  the  face  of 
almost  every  conceivable  discouragement,  had  at 
last  won  a  great  preliminary  victory.  Slavery, 
through  their  exertions,  had  become  impossible, 
both  in  the  Territories  and  in  the  free  States  of  the 
North,  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  and  all 
the  forces  of  the  slave  power  to  the  contrary  not 
withstanding- 


48  The  Abolitionists 

Then  came  to  the  South  a  not  unanticipated,  and 
to  many  of  her  leaders  a  not  unwelcome  political 
Waterloo,  in  the  election  of  Lincoln.  This  gave 
the  argument  for  secession  that  was  wanted.  The 
South  had  then  to  yield— which  she  had  no  idea  of 
doing— or  to  go  into  rebellion.  She  went  out  of 
the  Union  very  much  as  she  would  have  gone  to  a 
frolic.  She  had  no  thought  that  serious  fighting 
was  to  follow.  She  did  not  believe,  as  one  of  the 
Southern  leaders  expressed  it,  that  the  Northern 
people  would  go  to  war  for  the  sake  of  the ' '  niggers." 


CHAPTER  VI 

ANTI-SLAVERY   PIONEERS 

THE  early  Abolitionists  were  denounced  as  fan 
atics,  or  "fan-a-tics,"  according  to  the  pro 
nunciation  of  some  of  their  detractors.  They  were 
treated  as  if  partially  insane.  The  writer  when  a 
boy  attended  the  trial  of  a  cause  between  two  neigh 
bors  in  a  court  of  low  grade.  It  was  what  was  called 
a  "cow  case,"  and  involved  property  worth,  per 
haps,  as  much  as  twenty  dollars.  One  of  the  wit 
nesses  on  the  stand  was  asked  by  a  lawyer,  who 
wanted  to  embarrass  or  discredit  him,  if  he  were  not 
an  Abolitionist.  Objection  came  from  the  other 
side  on  the  ground  that  the  inquiry  was  irrelevant; 
but  the  learned  justice-of-the-peace  who  presided 
held  that,  as  it  related  to  the  witness's  sanity,  and 
that  would  affect  his  credibility,  the  question  was 
admissible.  It  is  not,  perhaps,  so  very  strange  that 
in  those  days,  in  view  of  the  disreputableness  of 
those  whose  cause  they  espoused,  and  the  apparently 
utter  hopelessness  of  anything  ever  coming  out  of 
it,  the  supporters  of  Anti-Slaveryism  should  be  sus 
pected  of  being  "out  of  their  heads." 

Although  Don  Quixote,  who,  according  to  the 
veracious  Cervantes,  set  out  with  his  unaided  strong 
right  arm  to  upset  things,  including  wind-mills  and 
4  49 


50  The  Abolitionists 

obnoxious  dynasties,  has  long  been  looked  upon  as 
the  world's  best  specimen  of  a  "fanatic,"  he  would 
ordinarily  be  set  down  as  a  very  Solomon  beside  the 
man  who  would  undertake  single-handed  to  over 
throw  such  an  institution  as  American  slavery  used 
to  be.  Such  a  man  there  was,  however.  He  really 
entered  on  the  job  of  abolishing  that  institution, 
and  without  a  solitary  assistant.  Strange  to  say, 
he  was  neither  a  giant  nor  a  millionaire. 

According  to  Horace  Grecley,  "Benjamin  Lundy 
deserves  the  high  honor  of  ranking  as  the  pioneer  of 
direct  and  distinctive  Anti-Slaveryism  in  America." 

He  was  slight  in  frame  and  below  the  medium 
height,  and  unassuming  in  manner.  He  had,  it  is 
said,  neither  eloquence  nor  shining  ability  of  any 
sort. 

At  nineteen  years  of  age  he  went  to  Wheeling, 
Virginia,  to  learn  the  trade  of  a  saddler.  He 
learned  more  than  that.  Wheeling,  as  he  tells  us, 
was  then  a  great  thoroughfare  for  the  traffickers  in 
human  flesh.  Their  coffles  passed  through  the 
place  frequently.  "My  heart,"  he  continues,  "was 
grieved  at  the  great  abomination.  I  heard  the  wail 
of  the  captive,  I  felt  his  pang  of  distress,  and  the 
iron  entered  into  my  soul." 

But  much  as  Lundy  loathed  the  business  of  the 
slave-dealers  and  slave-drivers,  he  then  had  no  idea 
of  attempting  its  abolishment.  He  married  and 
settled  down  to  the  prosecution  of  his  trade,  and 
had  he  been  like  other  people  generally  he  would 
have  been  content.  But  he  could  not  shut  the  pic 
tures  of  those  street  scenes  in  Wheeling  out  of  his 
mind  and  out  of  his  heart. 


Anti-Slavery  Pioneers  51 

The  first  thing  in  the  reformatory  line  he  did  was 
to  organize  a  local  Anti-Slavery  society  in  the  village 
in  which  he  was  then  living  in  Ohio;  at  the  first 
meeting  of  this  society  only  five  persons  were 
present. 

About  this  time  Lundy  made  some  important 
discoveries.  He  learned  that  he  could  write  what 
the  newspapers  would  print,  and  give  expression  to 
words  that  the  people  would  listen  to.  He  was 
quick  to  realize  the  fact  that  the  best  way  to  reach 
the  people  of  this  country  was  through  the  press. 
He  started  a  very  small  paper  with  a  very  large 
name.  It  was  ambitiously  nominated  The  Genius 
of  Universal  Emancipation.  He  began  with  only  six 
subscribers  and  without  a  press  or  other  publishing 
material.  Moreover,  he  had  no  money.  He  was 
not  then  a  practical  printer,  though  later  he  learned 
the  art  of  type-setting.  At  this  time  he  had  his 
newspaper  printed  twenty  miles  from  his  home,  and 
carried  the  edition  for  that  distance  on  his  back. 

But  insignificant  as  Lundy's  paper  was,  it  had  the 
high  distinction  of  being  the  only  exclusively  Anti- 
Slavery  journal  in  the  country,  and  its  editor  and 
proprietor  was  the  only  professional  Abolition  lec 
turer  and  agitator  of  that  time. 

Afterwards,  in  speaking  of  his  journalistic  under 
taking,  Mr.  Lundy  said:  "I  began  this  work  with 
out  a  dollar  of  funds,  trusting  to  the  sacredness  of 
the  cause."  Another  saying  of  his  was  that  he  did 
not  stop  to  calculate  "how  soon  his  efforts  would 
be  crowned  with  success." 

As  Lundy  spent  the  greater  part  of  his  time  in 
traveling  from  place  to  place,  procuring  subscrip- 


5 2  The  Abolitionists 

tions  to  his  journal  and  lecturing  on  slavery,  he 
could  not  issue  his  paper  regularly  at  any  one  point. 
In  some  instances  he  carried  the  head-rules,  column- 
rules,  and  subscription-book  of  his  journal  with  him, 
and  when  he  came  to  a  town  where  he  found  a 
printing-press  he  would  stop  long  enough  to  print 
and  mail  a  number  of  his  periodical.  He  traveled 
for  the  most  part  on  foot,  carrying  a  heavy  pack. 
In  ten  years  in  that  way  he  covered  twenty-five 
thousand  miles,  five  thousand  on  foot. 

He  decided  to  invade  the  enemy's  country  by 
going  where  slavery  was.  He  went  to  Tennessee, 
making  the  journey  of  eight  hundred  miles,  one  half 
by  water,  and  one  half  on  foot.  That  was,  of  course, 
before  the  day  of  railroads. 

He  continued  to  issue  his  paper,  although  often 
threatened  with  personal  violence.  Once  two  bullies 
locked  him  in  a  room  and,  with  revolvers  in  hand, 
tried  to  frighten  him  into  a  promise  to  discontinue 
his  work.  He  did  not  frighten  to  any  extent. 

Seeking  what  seemed  to  be  the  most  inviting  field 
for  his  operations,  he  decided  to  move  his  establish 
ment  to  Baltimore,  going  most  of  the  way  on  foot 
and  lecturing  as  he  went  whenever  he  could  find  an 
audience. 

His  residence  in  Baltimore  came  near  proving 
fatal.  A  slave-trader,  whom  he  had  offended,  at 
tacked  and  brutally  beat  him  on  the  street.  The 
consolation  he  got  from  the  court  that  tried  the 
ruffian,  who  was  " honorably  discharged,"  was  that 
he  (Lundy)  had  got  "nothing  more  than  he  de 
served.  ' '  Soon  afterwards  his  printing  material  and 
other  property  was  burned  by  a  mob. 


Anti-Slavery  Pioneers  53 

He  went  to  Mexico  to  select  a  location  for  a 
projected  colony  of  colored  people.  He  traveled 
almost  altogether  afoot,  observing  the  strictest 
economy  and  supporting  himself  by  occasional  jobs 
of  saddlery  and  harness  mending.  In  his  journal 
he  tells  us  that  he  often  slept  in  the  open  air,  the 
country  traversed  being  mostly  new  and  unsettled. 
He  was  in  constant  danger  from  panthers,  alligators, 
and  rattlesnakes,  while  he  was  cruelly  beset  by  gnats 
and  mosquitoes.  His  clothes  in  the  morning,  he 
tells  us,  would  be  as  wet  from  heavy  dews  as  if  he 
had  fallen  into  the  river. 

Intellectually,  Lundy  was  not  a  great  man,  but 
his  heart  was  beyond  measurement.  The  torch 
that  he  carried  in  the  midst  of  the  all  but  universal 
darkness  of  that  period  emitted  but  a  feeble  ray, 
but  he  kept  it  burning,  and  it  possessed  the  almost 
invaluable  property  of  being  able  to  transmit  its 
flame  to  other  torches.  It  kindled  the  brand  that 
was  wielded  by  William  Lloyd  Garrison,  and  which 
possessed  a  wonderful  power  of  illumination. 

Garrison  was  beyond  all  question  a  remarkable 
man.  In  the  qualities  that  endow  a  successful 
leader  in  a  desperate  cause  he  has  never  been  sur 
passed.  He  had  an  iron  will  that  was  directed  by 
an  inflexible  conscience.  "To  him,"  says  James 
Freeman  Clarke,  "right  was  right,  and  wrong  was 
wrong,  and  he  saw  no  half  lights  or  half  shadows  be 
tween  them."  He  was  a  natural  orator.  I  never 
heard  him  talk,  either  on  or  off  the  platform,  but  I 
have  heard  those  who  had  listened  to  him,  speak  of 
the  singular  gift  he  possessed  in  stating  or  combat 
ing  a  proposition.  One  person  who  had  heard  him, 


54  The  Abolitionists 

often  compared  him,  when  dealing  with  an  adver 
sary,  to  a  butcher  engaged  in  dissecting  a  carcass, 
and  who  knew  just  where  to  strike  every  time, — a 
homely,  but  expressive  illustration.  His  addresses 
in  England  on  a  certain  notable  occasion,  which  is 
dealt  with  somewhat  at  length  elsewhere,  were  de 
clared  by  the  first  British  orators  to  be  models  of 
perfect  eloquence. 

Lundy  and  Garrison  met  by  accident.  They 
were  boarding  at  the  same  house  in  Boston,  and 
became  acquainted.  Lundy's  mind  was  full  of  the 
subject  of  slavery,  and  Garrison's  proved  to  be  re 
ceptive  soil.  They  decided  to  join  forces,  and  we 
have  the  singular  spectacle  of  two  poor  mechanics 
— a  journeyman  saddler  and  a  journeyman  printer — 
conspiring  to  revolutionize  the  domestic  institutions 
of  half  of  the  country. 

They  decided  to  continue  the  Baltimore  news 
paper.  Garrison's  plain-spokenness,  however,  soon 
got  him  into  trouble  in  that  city.  He  was  prose 
cuted  for  libelling  a  shipmaster  for  transporting 
slaves,  was  convicted  and  fined  fifty  dollars.  The 
amount,  so  far  as  his  ability  to  pay  was  involved, 
might  as  well  have  been  a  million.  He  went  to 
prison,  being  incarcerated  in  a  cell  just  vacated  by 
a  man  who  had  been  hanged  for  murder,  and  there 
he  remained  for  seven  weeks.  At  the  end  of  that 
time  Arthur  Tappan,  the  big-hearted  merchant  of 
New  York,  learning  the  facts  of  the  case,  advanced 
the  money  needed  to  set  Garrison  free. 

Undeterred  by  his  experience  as  a  martyr,  Garri 
son — who  had  returned  to  Boston — resolved  to 
establish  a  journal  of  his  own  in  that  city,  which 


Anti-Slavery  Pioneers  55 

was  to  be  devoted  to  the  cause  of  the  slave.  The 
Liberator  appeared  on  the  1st  of  January,  1831. 

In  entering  upon  this  venture,  Garrison  had  not 
a  subscriber  nor  a  dollar  of  money.  Being  a  printer, 
he  set  up  the  type  and  struck  off  the  first  issue  with 
his  own  hands. 

In  the  initial  number  the  proprietor  of  the  Liber- 
ator  outlined  his  proposed  policy  in  these  words: 
"I  will  be  as  harsh  as  truth;  as  uncompromising  as 
justice.  I  am  in  earnest.  I  will  not  excuse;  I  will 
not  retreat  a  single  inch;  and  I  will  be  heard." 

The  first  issue  of  the  paper  brought  in  a  contribu 
tion  of  fifty  dollars  from  a  colored  man  and  twenty- 
five  subscribers.  It  was  not,  therefore,  a  failure, 
but  its  continuance  involved  a  terrible  strain.  Gar 
rison  and  one  co-worker  occupied  one  room  for 
work-shop,  dining-room,  and  bedroom.  They 
cooked  their  own  meals  and  slept  upon  the  floor. 
It  was  almost  literally  true,  as  pictured  by  Lowell, 
the  poet : 

"  In  a  small  chamber,  friendless  and  unseen, 

Toiled  o'er  his  types  one  poor  unlearned  young  man. 
The  place  was  dark,  unfurnitured  and  mean, 
Yet  there  the  freedom  of  a  race  began." 

The  effects  produced  by  Garrison's  unique  pro 
duction  were  simply  wonderful.  In  October  of  its 
first  year  the  Vigilance  Association  of  South  Caro 
lina  offered  a  reward  of  fifteen  hundred  dollars  for 
the  apprehension  and  prosecution  to  conviction  of 
any  white  person  who  might  be  detected  in  dis 
tributing  or  circulating  the  Liberator.  Georgia 
went  farther  than  that.  Less  than  a  year  after 


56  The  Abolitionists 

Garrison  had  established  his  paper,  the  Legislature 
of  that  State  passed  an  act  offering  a  reward  of  five 
thousand  dollars  to  whomsoever  should  arrest,  bring 
to  trial,  and  prosecute  its  publisher  to  conviction. 
The  Liberator  was  excluded  from  the  United  States 
mails  in  all  the  slave  States,  illegal  as  such  a  pro 
ceeding  was. 

There  was,  however,  opposition  nearer  home. 
The  Liberator  establishment  was  wrecked  by  a  mob, 
and  Garrison,  after  having  been  stripped  of  nearly 
all  his  clothing,  was  dragged,  bareheaded,  by  a  rope 
round  his  body  through  the  streets  of  Boston  until, 
to  save  his  life,  the  authorities  thrust  him  into  jail. 

No  man  in  this  country  was  so  cordially  hated  by 
the  slaveholders  as  Garrison.  Of  the  big  men  up 
North — the  leaders  of  politics  and  society — they 
had  no  apprehension.  They  knew  how  to  manage 
them.  It  was  the  little  fellows  like  the  editor  of 
the  Liberator  that  gave  them  trouble.  These  men 
had  no  money,  but  they  could  not  be  bought. 
They  had  no  fear  of  mobs.  They  cared  nothing 
for  the  scoldings  of  the  church  and  the  press.  An 
adverse  public  sentiment  never  disturbed  their 
equanimity  or  caused  them  to  turn  a  hair's  breadth 
in  their  course. 

It  is  true  that  Lundy  and  Garrison  had  very  little 
to  lose.  They  had  neither  property  nor  social  posi 
tion.  That,  however,  cannot  be  said  of  another 
early  Abolitionist,  who,  in  some  respects,  is  entitled 
to  more  consideration  than  any  of  his  co-workers. 

James  Gillespie  Birney  was  a  Southerner  by  birth. 
He  belonged  to  a  family  of  financial  and  social 
prominence.  He  was  a  gentleman  of  education  and 


Anti-Slavery  Pioneers  57 

culture,  having  graduated  from  a  leading  college 
and  being  a  lawyer  of  recognized  ability.  He  was 
a  slave-owner.  For  a  time  he  conducted  a  planta 
tion  with  slave  labor.  He  lived  in  Alabama,  where 
he  filled  several  important  official  positions,  and  was 
talked  of  for  the  governorship  of  the  State.  But 
having  been  led  to  think  about  the  moral,  and  other 
aspects  of  slaveholding,  he  decided  that  it  was 
wrong  and  he  would  wash  his  hands  of  it.  He 
could  not  in  Alabama  legally  manumit  his  slaves. 
Moreover,  his  neighbors  had  risen  up  against  him 
and  threatened  his  forcible  expulsion.  He  removed 
to  Kentucky,  where  he  thought  a  more  liberal  senti 
ment  prevailed.  There  he  freed  his  slaves  and  made 
liberal  provision  for  their  comfortable  sustenance. 
But  the  slave  power  was  on  his  track.  He  was 
warned  to  betake  himself  out  of  the  State.  The 
infliction  of  personal  violence  was  meditated,  and  a 
party  of  his  opposers  came  together  for  that  pur 
pose.  They  were  engaged  in  discussing  ways  and 
means  when  a  young  man  of  commanding  presence 
and  strength,  who  happened  to  be  present,  an 
nounced  that  while  he  lived  Mr.  Birney  would  not 
be  molested.  His  opposition  broke  up  the  plot. 
That  young  man  became  a  leading  clergyman  and 
was  subsequently  for  a  time  Chaplain  of  the  United 
States  Senate. 

Birney  went  with  his  belongings  to  Ohio,  thinking 
that  upon  the  soil  of  a  free  State  he  would  be  safe 
from  molestation.  He  established  a  newspaper  in 
Cincinnati  to  advocate  emancipation.  A  mob 
promptly  destroyed  his  press  and  other  property, 
and  it  was  with  difficulty  that  he  escaped  with  his  life. 


58  The  Abolitionists 

More  sagacious,  although  not  more  zealous,  than 
Lundy  and  Garrison  and  a  good  many  of  their  fol 
lowers,  Birney  early  saw  the  necessity  of  political 
action  in  the  interest  of  freedom.  He  was  the  real 
founder  of  the  old  " Liberty"  party,  of  which  he 
was  the  presidential  candidate  in  1840  and  in  1844. 

Of  course,  there  were  other  early  laborers  for 
emancipation  that,  in  this  connection,  ought  to  be 
mentioned  and  remembered.  They  were  pioneers 
in  the  truest  sense.  The  writer  would  gladly  make 
a  record  of  their  services,  and  pay  a  tribute,  espe 
cially,  to  the  memories  of  such  as  have  gone  to  the 
spirit  land,  where  the  great  majority  are  now  mus 
tered,  but  space  at  this  point  forbids. 


CHAPTER  VII 

SALMON   PORTLAND  CHASE 

IF  I  were  asked  to  name  the  man  to  whom  the 
colored  people  of  this  country,  who  were  slaves, 
or  were  liable  to  become  slaves,  are  under  the  great 
est  obligation  for  their  freedom,  I  would  unhesitat 
ingly  say  Salmon  Portland  Chase. 

If  I  were  asked  to  name  the  man  who  was  the 
strongest  and  most  useful  factor  in  the  Government 
during  the  great  final  contest  that  ended  in  the 
emancipation  of  the  black  man,  I  would  say  Salmon 
Portland  Chase. 

In  expressing  the  opinions  above  given,  no  re 
proach  for  Abraham  Lincoln,  nor  for  any  of  the 
distinguished  members  of  his  Cabinet,  is  intended 
or  implied.  Inferiority  to  Salmon  P.  Chase  was  not 
a  disgrace.  Physically  he  rose  above  all  his  official 
associates,  which  was  no  discredit  to  them,  and  in 
much  the  same  way  he  towered  intellectually  and 
administratively.  His  was  the  most  trying,  the 
most  difficult  position,  in  the  entire  circle  of  public 
departments.  It  was  easy  to  get  men  to  fight  the 
battles  of  the  Union  if  there  was  money  to  pay  them. 
It  was  easy  to  furnish  ships  and  arms  and  supplies 
in  sufficient  quantity,  notwithstanding  the  terrible 
drain  of  the  greatest  of  civil  wars,  as  long  as  the 

59 


60  The  Abolitionists 

funds  held  out.  Everything  depended  on  the  treas 
ury.  Failure  there  meant  irretrievable  disaster.  It 
would  not  answer  to  have  any  serious  mistakes  in 
that  quarter,  and  in  fact  no  fatal  mistakes  were  there 
made.  In  all  other  departments  there  were  failures 
and  blunders,  but  the  financial  department  met 
every  emergency  and  every  requisition.  Chase's 
financial  policy  it  was  that  carried  the  country 
majestically  through  the  war,  and  that  afterwards 
paid  the  nation's  debts. 

There  is  a  circumstance  that  has  not  been  men 
tioned,  as  far  as  the  writer  knows,  by  any  of  Mr. 
Chase's  biographers,  which  seems  to  him  to  be 
significant  and  worth  referring  to.  During  the 
Civil  War,  Walter  Bagehot  was  editor  of  the  Econo 
mist ',  the  great  English  financial  journal.  His  opin 
ion  in  financial  matters  was  regarded  as  the  highest 
authority.  It  was  accepted  as  infallible.  He  dis 
cussed  the  plans  of  Mr.  Chase  with  great  elaborate 
ness  and  great  severity.  He  predicted  that  they 
were  all  destined  to  failure,  and  proved  this  theoreti 
cally  to  his  own  satisfaction  and  the  satisfaction  of 
many  others.  The  result  showed  that  Mr.  Chase 
was  right  all  the  time,  and  the  great  English  econo 
mist  was  wrong. 

The  entrance  of  such  a  man  into  the  Abolitionist 
movement  marked  an  era  in  its  history.  It  was  the 
thing  most  needed.  He  gave  it  a  leader  who,  of  all 
men  then  living,  was  most  competent  for  leadership. 
From  that  time  he  was  its  Moses. 

The  greatest  service  rendered  to  the  Abolition 
cause  by  Salmon  P.  Chase  was  in  pushing  it  forward 
on  political  lines.  There  was  a  contest  for  the  mas- 


Salmon  Portland  Chase  61 

tery  of  the  Government  from  the  hour  he  took 
command.  The  movement  was  to  be  slow,  some 
times  halting  and  apparently  falling  back,  in  some 
respects  insignificant,  in  all  respects  desperate,  but 
there  was  to  be  no  permanent  defeat  and  no  com 
promise. 

The  espousal  of  Abolitionism  by  Mr.  Chase  was  a 
remarkable  circumstance.  He  was  not  an  enthusiast 
like  Garrison  and  Lundy  and  many  other  Anti- 
Slavery  pioneers,  but  precisely  the  opposite.  He 
was  cold-blooded  and  cool-headed,  a  deliberate  and 
conservative  man.  His  speeches  were  described  as 
giving  light  but  no  heat.  His  sympathies  were 
seemingly  weak,  but  his  sense  of  justice  was  im 
mense.  Apparently,  he  opposed  slavery  because  it 
was  wrong  rather  than  because  it  was  cruel.  He 
had  a  big  body,  a  big  head,  and  a  big  conscience, 
the  combination  making  a  strong  man  and  a  good 
fighter. 

That  he  did,  in  fact,  sympathize  with  the  slaves 
was  shown  by  his  professional  work  in  their  behalf, 
more  particularly  in  pleading  without  fee  or  other 
reward  the  cases  of  escaped  fugitives  in  the  courts. 
So  numerous  were  his  engagements  in  this  regard 
that  his  antagonists  spoke  of  him  sneeringly  as  the 
"Attorney-General  for  runaway  niggers."  Upon 
some  of  his  Anti-Slavery  cases  he  bestowed  an  im 
mense  amount  of  work.  His  argument  in  the  case 
of  Van  Zant — the  original  of  Van  Tromp  in  Mrs. 
Stowe's  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin, — an  old  man  who  was 
prosecuted  and  fined  until  he  was  financially  ruined 
for  giving  a  "lift"  in  his  farm  wagon  to  a  slave 
family  on  its  way  to  Canada,  was  said  at  the  time  to 


62  The  Abolitionists 

have  been  the  most  able  so  far  made  in  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States.  That  and  other  similar 
utterances  by  Mr.  Chase  were  published  for  popular 
reading,  and  were  widely  distributed  by  friends  of 
the  cause. 

It  is  possible  that,  in  performing  this  arduous 
labor,  Mr.  Chase,  who  was  not  without  personal 
ambition,  was  able,  with  his  great  native  sagacity, 
to  foresee,  although  it  must  have  been  but  dimly, 
the  possibilities  of  political  development  and  official 
promotion,  but  at  the  same  time,  for  the  same 
reason,  he  could  the  more  clearly  realize  the  weari 
some,  heart-breaking  struggle  that  was  before  him. 

It  was  an  enormous  sacrifice  that  he  made.  Jour 
neymen  printers  and  saddlers,  like  Garrison  and 
Lundy,  who  had  never  had  as  much  as  one  hundred 
dollars  at  one  time  in  their  lives,  and  who  had  no 
social  position  and  no  influential  kinsfolks,  had  little 
to  lose.  But  it  was  very  different  with  Chase.  He 
had  a  profession  that  represented  great  wealth.  He 
had  distinguished  and  aristocratic  family  connec 
tions.  He  had  a  high  place  in  society.  All  these 
he  risked  and  largely  lost. 

In  speaking  of  his  sacrifices  at  that  time  in  a 
subsequent  letter  to  a  friend,  he  wrote: 

"  Having  resolved  on  my  political  course,  I  devoted 
all  the  time  and  means  I  could  command  to  the  work  of 
spreading  the  principles  and  building  up  the  organization 
of  the  party  of  constitutional  freedom  then  inaugurated. 
Sometimes,  indeed,  all  I  could  do  seemed  insignificant, 
while  the  labors  I  had  to  perform,  and  the  demand  upon 
my  very  limited  resources  by  necessary  contributions, 
taxed  severely  all  my  abilities." 


Salmon  Portland  Chase  63 

The  writer  hereof  was  a  witness  to  one  incident 
that  showed  something  of  the  loss  that  Mr.  Chase 
sustained  in  a  business  way  because  of  his  principles. 
While  a  law  student  in  a  country  village  he  was  sent 
down  to  Cincinnati  to  secure  certain  testimony  in 
the  form  of  affidavits.  During  his  visit  he  called  at 
Mr.  Chase's  law  office,  introduced  himself,  and  was 
very  pleasantly  received.  He  noticed  that  there 
was  a  notary  public  in  the  office. 

Among  other  instructions  he  had  been  directed  to 
get  the  affidavit  of  a  leading  business  man  in  Cincin 
nati,  a  railroad  president.  The  document  was  pre 
pared  and  signed,  but  there  was  no  one  at  hand 
before  whom  it  could  be  sworn  to.  The  writer 
remarked  that  he  knew  where  there  was  a  notary 
in  a  near-by  office.  We  proceeded  to  Mr.  Chase's 
chambers,  and  were  about  to  enter  when  my  com 
panion  noticed  the  name  on  the  door.  He  fell  back 

as  if  he  had  been  struck  in  the  face.     "The 

Abolitionist,"  he  exclaimed,  "I  would  n't  enter  his 
place  for  a  hundred  dollars!"  We  went  elsewhere 
for  our  business,  and  on  the  way  my  companion 
expressed  himself  about  Mr.  Chase.  "What  a  pity 
it  is,"  he  said,  "that  that  young  man  is  ruining 
himself.  He  is  a  bright  man,"  he  went  on,  "and  I 
employed  him  professionally  until  he  went  daft  on 
the  subject  of  freeing  the  niggers  whom  the  Lord 
made  for  the  purpose  of  serving  the  white  people." 

Like  pretty  much  all  the  early  Abolitionists,  Mr. 
Chase  had  a  taste  of  mob  violence.  He  had  one 
singular  experience.  When  the  mob  destroyed 
the  printing  establishment  of  James  G.  Birney  in 
Cincinnati,  Chase  mingled  with  the  crowd.  He 


64  The  Abolitionists 

discovered  that  personal  violence  to  Mr.  Birney  was 
contemplated  and  that  his  life  was  in  danger.  He 
made  all  haste  to  Birney's  residence  and  gave  him 
warning  of  his  peril.  Then  he  took  his  stand  in  the 
doorway  of  the  building  and  calmly  awaited  the 
coming  of  the  rabble.  Those  who  knew  Chase  will 
remember  that  in  size  he  was  almost  a  giant,  and 
his  countenance  had  a  stern,  determined  look.  The 
multitude,  finding  itself  thus  unexpectedly  con 
fronted,  paused  and  entered  into  a  parley  that  gave 
the  hunted  man  an  opportunity  to  reach  a  place  of 
safety. 

Chase  had  an  appointment  to  speak  in  the  village 
in  which  the  writer  lived,  and  the  opposers  of  his 
cause  arranged  to  give  him  a  warm  reception. 
Something  prevented  his  attendance,  and  a  very 
mild  and  amiable  old  clergyman  from  an  adjoining 
town,  who  took  his  place,  received  the  shower- 
bath  of  uncooked  eggs  that  had  been  intended  for 
the  Cincinnati  Abolitionist. 

Chase's  great  work  for  the  Anti-Slavery  cause  was 
in  projecting  and  directing  it  on  independent  politi 
cal  lines.  Up  to  that  time  most  Anti-Slavery  people 
opposed  separate  party  action.  Garrison  and  his 
Liberator  violently  denounced  such  action.  Moral 
suasion  was  urged  as  the  panacea.  Chase  himself 
had  not  been  a  "third  party"  man.  In  1840,  when 
there  was  an  Abolition  ticket  in  the  field,  headed 
by  his  personal  friend,  James  G.  Birney,  he  had  not 
supported  it.  But  soon  afterwards,  becoming  firmly 
convinced  that  Anti-Slavery  people  had  nothing  to 
hope  for  from  either  of  the  old  parties,  he  set  about 
the  work  of  building  a  new  one.  The  undertaking 


Salmon  Portland  Chase  65 

was  with  no  mental  reservation  on  his  part.  When 
he  put  his  hand  to  that  plow  there  was  no  looking 
back,  notwithstanding  that  a  rougher  or  more  stony 
field,  and  one  less  promising  of  returns  for  the 
laborer  than  that  before  him,  would  be  difficult  to 
imagine. 

In  1841  he  headed  a  call  for  a  convention  at  Co 
lumbus,  the  State  capital,  to  organize  the  Liberty 
party  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  and  at  the  same  time 
nominate  a  State  ticket.  Less  than  a  hundred  sym 
pathizers  responded  to  the  call,  and  the  ticket  put 
in  nomination  received  less  than  one  thousand  votes. 

Among  the  attendants  at  the  Columbus  meeting 
was  a  near  kinsman  of  the  author.  On  his  return, 
in  describing  the  proceedings,  he  said  that  pretty 
much  everything  was  directed  by  a  Mr.  Chase 
(Salamander  Chase  was  his  name,  he  said),  a  young 
Cincinnati  lawyer.  That  young  man,  he  declared, 
would  yet  make  a  mark  in  the  world. 

From  that  time  every  important  move  was  di 
rected  by  Chase.  He  prepared  the  calls  for  import 
ant  meetings.  He  wrote  their  addresses  and  their 
platforms.  He  made  the  leading  speeches.  He 
presided  at  the  great  convention  at  Buffalo  in  1848, 
which  formulated  the  "Free-Soil"  party — successor 
to  the  Liberty  party— and  wrote  the  platform  which 
it  adopted. 

In  speaking  of  Chase's  share  in  the  independent 
organization  of  this  time,  William  M.  Evarts  says: 
"He  must  be  awarded  the  full  credit  of  having 
understood,  resolved  upon,  planned,  organized,  and 
executed  this  political  movement." 

The  movement  thus  conducted  by  Mr.  Chase  was 


66  The  Abolitionists 

slow  and  tremendously  laborious,  but  it  was  effec 
tive.  In  the  presidential  elections  of  1844  an<3  1848 
it  held  the  balance  of  power  and  turned  the  scale  to 
further  its  purposes.  In  1852  it  shattered  and  de 
stroyed  one  of  the  old  pro-slavery  parties,  and  be 
came  the  second  party  in  the  country  instead  of  the 
third.  In  eight  years  more  it  was  the  first. 

The  charge  has  been  made  against  Mr.  Chase 
that,  while  a  member  of  Lincoln's  Cabinet,  he  as 
pired  to  supersede  his  chief  in  the  Presidency.  But 
did  he  not  have  a  right  to  seek  the  higher  office, 
especially  when  the  policy  pursued  by  its  incumbent 
did  not  meet  his  full  approval?  He  merely  shared 
the  sentiment  that  was  then  entertained  by  nearly 
all  the  radical  Anti-Slavery  people  of  the  country. 

It  is  not  unlikely  that  Chase  felt  somewhat  en 
vious  of  Lincoln.  After,  as  he  stated  in  his  letter 
of  congratulation  to  Mr.  Lincoln  on  his  first  elec 
tion,  he  had  given  nineteen  years  of  continuous  and 
exhausting  labor  to  the  freedom  movement,  it  would 
be  but  natural  that  he  should  feel  aggrieved  when 
he  saw  that  the  chief  credit  of  that  movement  was 
likely  to  go  to  one  who  had,  to  his  own  exclusion, 
come  up  slowly  and  reluctantly  at  a  later  day  to  its 
support.  If  he  were  somewhat  jealous,  it  would  be 
hard  not  to  sympathize  with  him. 


CHAPTER   VIII 

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS 

IF  I  were  asked  to  name  the  man  who,  next  to 
Salmon  P.  Chase,  most  effectually  and  meritori 
ously  contributed  to  the  liberation  of  the  black  man 
in  this  country,  I  should  unhesitatingly  say  John 
Quincy  Adams. 

By  the  great  majority  of  those  now  living  Mr. 
Adams  is  known  only  as  having  once  been  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States  and  as  belonging  to  a 
very  distinguished  family.  His  name  is  rarely  men 
tioned.  There  was  a  time,  however,  when  no  other 
name  was  heard  so  often  in  this  country,  or  which, 
when  used,  excited  such  violent  and  conflicting  emo 
tions.  It  can  justly  be  said  that  for  many  years 
John  Quincy  Adams,  individually  and  practically 
alone,  by  his  services  in  Congress,  sustained  what 
Anti-Slavery  sentiment  there  was  in  the  nation.  It 
was  but  a  spark,  but  he  kept  it  alive  and  gradually 
extended  its  conflagration. 

When  Adams  entered  Congress  opposition  to 
slavery  was  at  its  lowest  ebb.  It  was  almost  ex 
tinct.  The  victory  of  the  slaveholders  in  the  Mis 
souri  contest  had  elated  them  most  tremendously 
and  had  correspondingly  depressed  and  cowed  their 
adversaries.  As  a  general  thing,  the  latter  had  given 

67 


68  The  Abolitionists 

up  all  idea  of  making  any  further  fight.  Northern 
Presidents,  Northern  Congressmen,  Northern  edi 
tors,  Northern  churchmen,  were  the  most  ready  and 
servile  supporters  slavery  had.  Anti-Slavery  so 
cieties  had  been  abandoned.  Anti-Slavery  journals 
had  perished.  Disapproves  of  the  "institution," 
with  the  exception  of  a  few  men  of  the  Lundy  stamp 
and  the  Lundy  obscurity,  were  silent.  There  was 
one  magnificent  exception. 

It  was  at  that  crisis  that  John  Quincy  Adams 
entered  Congress  and  began  a  fight  against  slavery 
that,  covering  a  period  of  seventeen  years,  literally 
lasted  to  the  last  day  of  his  life.  He  was  carried 
helpless  and  dying  from  the  floor  of  Congress,  where 
he  had  fallen  when  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties. 

The  position  of  Mr.  Adams,  who  had  been  elected 
as  an  independent  candidate,  was  unique.  lie  owed 
his  official  place  to  no  political  party,  and  was,  there 
fore,  free  from  party  shackles  in  regulating  his 
course.  He  took  up  the  fight  for  the  black  man's 
freedom  as  one  who  was  himself  absolutely  free. 
Most  wonderfully  did  he  conduct  that  fight.  There 
was  nothing  in  the  eloquence  of  Demosthenes  in 
Athens,  of  Cicero  in  Rome,  of  Mirabeau  in  France, 
of  Pitt  or  Gladstone  in  England,  that  surpassed 
the  force  and  grandeur  of  the  philippics  of  Adams 
against  American  slavery.  Alone,  for  the  greater 
part  of  his  service  in  Congress,  he  stood  in  the  midst 
of  his  malignant  assailants  like  a  rock  in  a  stormy 
sea.  Old  man  that  he  was,  plainly  showing  the  in 
roads  of  physical  weakness,  he  was  in  that  body  of 
distinguished  and  able  men  more  than  a  match  for 
any  or  all  of  his  antagonists.  He  was  always  "the 


John  Quincy  Adams  69 

old  man  eloquent."     Says  one  of  our  leading  his 
torical  writers : 

"As  a  parliamentary  debater  he  had  few,  if  any, 
superiors.  In  knowledge  and  dexterity  there  was  no 
one  in  the  House  that  could  be  compared  with  him.  He 
was  literally  a  walking  cyclopedia.  He  was  terrible  in 
invective,  matchless  at  repartee,  and  insensible  to  fear. 
A  single-handed  fight  against  all  the  slaveholders  in  the 
House  was  something  upon  which  he  was  always  ready 
to  enter." 

Speaking  of  his  effectiveness  in  congressional 
encounters  another  Congressman  writes : 

"  He  is,  I  believe,  the  most  extraordinary  man  living. 
I  have  with  my  own  eyes  seen  the  slaveholders  literally 
quake  and  tremble  through  every  nerve  and  joint,  when 
he  arraigned  before  them  their  political  and  moral  sins. 
His  power  of  speech  has  exceeded  any  conception  I  have 
heretofore  had  of  the  force  of  words  or  logic." 

At  last  his  enemies  in  Congress  decided  that  they 
would  endure  his  attacks  no  longer.  They  took 
counsel  together  and  agreed  upon  a  plan  of  opera 
tions  looking  to  his  expulsion  from  that  body.  As 
one  of  his  biographers,  also  a  distinguished  Con 
gressman,  expressed  it:  "It  was  the  preconcerted 
and  deliberate  purpose  of  the  slave-masters  to  make 
an  example  of  the  ringleader  of  political  Abolition 
ism.  They  meant  to  humiliate  and  crush  him,  and 
this  they  did  not  doubt  their  power  to  do." 

Mr.  Adams  submitted  a  petition,  without  giving 
it  his  personal  endorsement,  asking  for  a  dissolution 
of  the  Union.  That  furnished  the  pretext  his 


70  The  Abolitionists 

enemies  wanted.  They  accused  him  of  treason  in 
contenancing  an  assault  upon  the  Union,  although 
they  were  at  the  time  engaged  in  laying  the  founda 
tion  of  a  movement  looking  to  its  ultimate  over 
throw.  The  outcome  of  this  undertaking  was  one 
of  the  most  thrilling  scenes  ever  witnesssd  in  the 
American  Congress;  or,  for  that  matter,  in  any 
other  deliberative  assembly. 

Preparations  for  the  affair  were  made  with  great 
elaborateness.  The  galleries  were  filled  with  the 
friends,  male  and  female,  of  pro-slavery  Congress 
men.  The  beauty  and  chivalry  of  the  South  were 
there.  They  had  come  to  witness  the  abasement 
of  the  great  enemy  of  their  most  cherished  institu 
tion.  They  were  to  see  him  driven  from  the  nation's 
council  chamber,  a  crushed  and  dishonored  man. 
Not  one  friendly  face  looked  down  upon  him  as  he 
sat  coolly  awaiting  the  attack,  and  upon  the  floor 
about  him  were  few  of  his  colleagues  that  gave  him 
their  sympathies. 

The  two  most  eloquent  Congressmen  from  the 
South  were  selected  to  lead  the  prosecution.  One 
was  the  celebrated  Henry  A.  Wise,  of  Virginia ;  the 
other  "Tom"  Marshall,  of  Kentucky.  The  latter 
opened  the  proceedings  by  offering  a  resolution 
charging  Mr.  Adams  with  treasonable  conduct  and 
directing  his  expulsion.  He  supported  it  with  a 
speech  of  much  ingenuity.  Wise  followed  in  a  fiery 
diatribe.  Both  speakers  imprudently  indulged  in 
personal  allusions  of  a  somewhat  scandalous  nature, 
thus  laying  themselves  open,  with  episodes  in  their 
careers  of  questionable  propriety,  to  retaliation  from 
a  man  who  thoroughly  knew  their  records. 


John  Quincy  Adams  71 

At  this  point  we  have  the  testimony  of  an  eye 
witness  : 

"  Then  uprose  that  bald,  gray  old  man  of  seventy-five, 
his  hands  tremulous  with  constitutional  infirmity  and 
age,  upon  whose  consecrated  head  the  vials  of  tyrannic 
wrath  had  been  outpoured.  Unexcited  he  raised  his 
voice,  high-keyed,  as  was  usual  with  him,  but  clear,  un- 
tremulous,  and  firm.  Almost  in  a  moment  his  infirmities 
disappeared,  although  his  shaking  hand  could  not  but  be 
noted,  trembling,  not  with  fear,  but  with  age." 

His  speech  was  absolutely  crushing.  He  met 
every  point  that  had  been  urged  against  him  and 
triumphantly  refuted  it.  He  handled  his  oratorical 
antagonists  with  merciless  severity,  depicting  certain 
events  in  their  lives  with  such  vividness  that  the 
onlookers  gazed  upon  them  with  visible  and  unmis 
takable  pity.  Said  one  of  these  men  when  he 
afterwards  understood  that  a  certain  party  was 
about  to  engage  in  a  controversial  debate  with  Mr. 
Adams,  "Then  may  the  Lord  have  mercy  on  him." 

Mr.  Adams  was  not  expelled.  His  opponents 
frankly  admitted  their  discomfiture  and  dropped  the 
whole  business. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  John  Quincy  Adams, 
almost  by  his  unaided  efforts,  preserved  and  sus 
tained  the  life  of  the  Anti-Slavery  cause  at  a  time 
when  it  was  almost  moribund.  He  plowed  the 
ground,  cutting  a  deep  and  broad  furrow  as  he  went 
his  way,  and  in  the  upturned  soil  such  laborers  as 
Birney  and  Garrison  and  Chase  planted  the  seed 
that  rooted  and  grew  until  it  yielded  a  plentiful 
harvest. 


CHAPTER   IX 

ANTI-SLAVERY    SOCIETIES 

THE  divergent  characteristics  of  the  East  and  the 
West  were  never  more  clearly  shown  than  in 
the  progress  of  the  Anti-Slavery  movement.  Efforts 
were  made  to  plant  Abolition  societies  at  various 
points  throughout  the  West,  but  they  failed  to  take 
permanent  root  and  soon  disappeared.  The  failure 
was  not  due  to  any  lack  of  interest,  but  rather  to  an 
excess  of  zeal  on  the  part  of  the  Western  support 
ers  of  the  cause.  Society  organizations  on  the  lines 
of  moral  suasion  were  too  slow  and  tame  to  suit 
them.  They  preferred  the  excitement  of  politics. 
They  believed  in  the  superior  efficacy  of  a  political 
party,  and  to  its  upbuilding  they  gave  their  energies 
and  resources.  In  the  "long  run"  they  were  amply 
vindicated,  but  for  all  that,  the  favorite  Eastern 
method  for  organized  effort  had  its  advantages. 

The  East,  and  especially  New  England,  always 
believed  in  societies.  If  anything  of  a  public  nature 
was  to  be  promoted  or  prevented,  a  society  always 
appealed  to  the  New^Englander  as  the  natural  in 
strumentality.  There  is  a  tradition  that  when  Bos 
ton  was  ravaged  by  a  loathsome  disease,  a  number 
of  its  leading  citizens  came  together  and  promptly 
organized  an  anti-smallpox  society. 

72 


Anti-Slavery  Societies  73 

When,  therefore,  it  was  decided  that  an  Anti- 
Slavery  movement  should  be  inaugurated  in  Boston, 
the  proper  thing  to  do,  according  to  all  the  stand 
ards  of  the  place,  was  to  organize  a  society.  But 
the  thing  was  more  easily  resolved  upon  than  done. 
It  required  the  concurrence  of  several  parties  of  like- 
mindedness.  Boston  was  a  pretty  large  place,  but 
Anti-Slavery  people  were  scarce.  The  number 
(doubtless  selected  because  it  was  Apostolic)  as 
sumed  to  be  necessary  was  twelve.  Fifteen  people 
of  somewhat  similar  views  were  at  last  brought  to 
gether.  After  much  discussion  nine  favored  an 
organization  and  six  opposed  it.  So  far  the  opera 
tion  was  a  failure.  But  at  last,  after  much  canvass 
ing,  twelve  men  were  found  who  promised  their 
co-operation — twelve  and  no  more.  Although  re 
spectable  people,  they  were  not  of  Boston's  "first 
citizens"  by  any  means.  It  is  said  that  if  they  had 
been  called  upon  for  a  hundred  dollars  each,  not 
over  two  of  them  could  have  responded  without 
bankruptcy. 

The  twelve  came  together  at  night  and  in  the 
basement  of  an  African  Baptist  Church,  the  room 
being  used  in  the  daytime  to  accommodate  a  school 
for  colored  children.  It  was  in  an  obscure  quarter 
of  Boston  known  as  "Nigger  Hill."  The  confer 
ence  was  in  the  month  of  December,  and  the  night 
is  thus  described  by  Oliver  Johnson,  who  was  one 
•  of  the  twelve :  "A  fierce  northeast  storm,  combining 
rain,  snow,  and  hail  in  about  equal  proportions,  was 
raging,  and  the  streets  were  full  of  slush.  They 
were  dark,  too,  for  the  city  of  Boston  in  those  days 
was  very  economical  of  light  on  Nigger  Hill." 


74  The  Abolitionists 

Both  nature  and  man  seemed  to  be  in  league 
against  those  plucky  pioneers  of  an  unpopular  cause. 
They,  however,  were  not  dismayed  nor  disheart 
ened.  It  was  as  they  were  stepping  out  into  the 
gloomy  night,  that  Mr.  Garrison,  who,  it  is  scarcely 
necessary  to  say,  was  one  of  the  twelve,  remarked 
to  his  associates:  "We  have  met  to-night  in  this 
obscure  schoolhouse;  our  numbers  are  few,  and  our 
influence  limited,  but  mark  my  prediction.  Faneuil 
Hall  shall  ere  long  echo  to  the  principles  we  have 
set  forth." 

What  those  principles  were  is  shown  by  the  de 
claration  adopted  by  that  handful  of  confederates, 
and  which,  in  view  of  the  time  and  circumstances 
of  its  formulation,  was  certainly  a  most  remarkable 
document.  Its  essential  proposition  was:  "  We, 
the  undersigned,  hold  that  every  person  of  full  age 
and  sound  mind  has  a  right  to  immediate  freedom 
from  personal  bondage  of  whatsoever  kind,  unless 
imposed  by  the  sentence  of  the  law  for  the  commis 
sion  of  some  crime." 

The  Declaration  of  Independence,  which  was  pro 
duced  with  no  little  theatrical  effect  amid  the  pomp 
and  circumstance  of  a  national  conclave  that  had 
met  in  the  finest  hall  in  the  country,  was  unques 
tionably  a  remarkable  and  memorable  pronounce 
ment.  It  was  for  the  time  and  situation  a  radical 
utterance.  It  was  the  precursor  of  a  revolution 
that  gave  political  freedom  to  several  million  people. 

But  the  platform  of  principles  that  was  announced 
by  the  New  England  Anti-Slavery  Society  (the  name 
adopted)  in  that  little  grimy  schoolroom  on  "Nigger 
Hill"  was,  in  at  least  some  respects,  a  more  remark- 


Anti-Slavery  Societies  75 

able  document.  Its  enunciation  required  an  equal 
degree  of  physical  and  moral  courage.  It  was  the 
precursor  of  a  revolution  that  gave  both  personal 
and  political  freedom  to  a  larger  number  than  were 
benefited  by  the  other  declaration.  But  what  chiefly 
distinguished  it,  the  time  and  the  situation  being 
considered,  was  its  radical  utterance.  It  gave  no 
countenance  to  any  measure  of  compromise.  It 
offered  no  pabulum  to  the  wrongdoer  in  the  form  of 
compensation  for  stolen  humanity.  It  demanded 
what  was  right,  and  demanded  it  at  once.  And 
that  fearless  and  unyielding  platform  became  the 
basis  for  all  the  Abolition  societies  that  came  after 
it.  A  goodly  number  of  such  societies  were  organ 
ized.  "The  Anti-Slavery  Society  for  the  City  of 
New  York"  was  formed  by  a  few  men  who  met  and 
did  their  work  while  a  mob  was  pounding  at  the 
door,  and  who,  having  completed  their  task,  fled  for 
their  lives. 

It  was  at  first  intended  that  a  national  Anti- 
Slavery  society  should  be  established  with  head 
quarters  in  the  city  of  New  York,  but  its  proposed 
organizers  discovered  that  there  was  not  a  public 
hall  or  church  in  that  city  in  which  they  would 
be  permitted  to  assemble.  Philadelphia,  with  its 
Quaker  contingent,  offered  a  more  inviting  field, 
and  to  that  city  it  was  decided  to  go.  But  serious 
obstructions  here  interposed.  Representatives  ap 
peared  from  fourteen  States,  which  was  highly  en 
couraging,  but  no  prominent  Philadelphian  could 
be  found  to  act  as  chairman  of  the  meeting.  A 
committee  was  appointed  to  secure  the  services  of 
such  a  man,  but,  after  interviewing  a  number  of 


76  The  Abolitionists 

leading  citizens,  it  was  compelled  to  report  that  it 
was  received  by  all  of  them  with  "polite  frigidity." 

Strange  to  say,  the  convention  was  permitted  to 
meet  for  three  days  in  succession  in  a  public  as 
sembly  room  without  interference  from  a  mob. 
The  police,  however,  warned  the  participants  not  to 
hold  night  sessions,  as  they  in  that  case  would  not 
promise  protection.  The  good  behavior  of  Phila 
delphia  on  this  occasion  was  noteworthy,  but  it  was 
too  good  to  last.  When  another  Anti-Slavery  meet 
ing,  not  long  after,  was  convened  in  that  city,  it 
was  broken  up  by  a  mob,  and  the  hall  in  which  it 
met  was  burned  to  the  ground. 

Finally  came  the  National  Anti-Slavery  Society, 
which,  in  view  of  its  limited  financial  resources,  cer 
tainly  did  a  wonderful  work.  Its  publications,  in 
spite  of  careful  watching  of  the  mails  and  other 
precautions  adopted  by  the  slaveholders,  reached 
all  parts  of  the  country,  and  its  preachers,  sent  out 
and  commissioned  to  proclaim  the  new  evangel  of 
equal  manhood,  were  absolutely  ubiquitous. 

Those  early  Anti-Slavery  lecturers  were  a  peculiar 
set.  Since  the  days  of  the  Apostles  there  have 
been  no  more  earnest  propagandists.  They  were 
both  male  and  female.  That  they  were,  as  a  rule, 
financially  poor,  it  is  unnecessary  to  state.  They 
lived  largely  on  the  country  traversed.  Sympa 
thizers  with  their  views,  having  received  and  enter 
tained  them  —  sometimes  clandestinely  —  after  a 
public  talk  or  two,  would  carry  them  on  to  the  next 
stations  on  their  routes,  occasionally  contributing  a 
few  dollars  to  their  purses.  It  made  no  particular 
difference  to  them  whether  they  spoke  in  halls,  in 


Anti-Slavery  Societies  77 

churches,  or  in  the  open  air.  Before  beginning 
their  addresses  their  usual  course  was  to  challenge 
their  opponents  to  debate,  and  to  taunt  them  with 
lack  of  courage  or  principle  if  they  failed  to  re 
spond.  Of  course,  they  were  in  constant  danger 
from  mobs.  They  were  stoned,  clubbed,  shot  at, 
and  rotten-egged,  and  in  a  few  extreme  cases  tarred 
and  feathered ;  but  they  were  never  frightened  from 
their  work. 

They  were  by  no  means  policy-wise.  That  was 
one  of  their  peculiarities.  Their  idea  seemed  to  be 
that  they  could  drive  people  easier  than  they  could 
lead  them.  They  used  no  buttered  phrases.  They 
told  the  plainest  truths  in  the  plainest  way.  They 
gave  their  audiences  hard  words,  and  often  received 
hard  knocks  in  return.  They  called  the  slaveholders 
robbers  and  man-stealers.  They  branded  Northern 
politicians  with  Southern  principles  as  "  dough 
faces/'  But  their  hardest  and  sharpest  expletives 
were  reserved  for  those  Northern  clergymen  who 
were  either  pro-slavery  or  non-committal.  They 
blistered  them  all  over  with  their  lashings.  In 
speaking  of  one  of  the  most  noted  among  them, 
Lowell  describes  him  as 

"A  kind  of  maddened  John  the  Baptist 
To  whom  the  hardest  word  came  aptest." 

The  lecturer  of  whom  I  saw  the  most  in  those 
early  trying  days  was  Professor  Hudson,  of  Oberlin 
College.  While  in  that  part  of  the  field  he  made 
headquarters  at  my  father's  house,  radiating  out 
and  filling  appointments  in  different  directions.  He 
was  exceedingly  sharp-tongued  and  very  fearless. 


78  The  Abolitionists 

Nothing  seemed  to  please  him  better  than  a  "scrim 
mage"  with  his  opponents.  Often  he  conquered 
mobs  by  resolutely  talking  them  down  and  making 
them  ashamed  of  themselves.  But  on  one  occa 
sion,  looking  through  the  window  from  the  outside 
to  see  what  awaited  him  in  a  room  where  he  was  to 
speak,  he  saw  a  pot  of  boiling  tar  on  the  stove  that 
heated  the  room  and  a  pillow-case  full  of  feathers 
conveniently  near,  while  a  half-drunken  crowd  was 
in  possession  of  the  place,  and  concluded  to  run. 
He,  however,  had  been  seen  and  was  pursued. 
There  was  a  foot  race,  but  as  some  of  the  pursuers 
were  better  sprinters  than  Hudson,  and  he  was 
about  to  be  captured,  he  dashed  into  the  first  house 
he  came  to  and  asked  for  protection.  The  pro 
prietor  was  a  kinsman  of  mine.  He  was  an  old 
man,  but  hearty  and  vigorous.  He  ordered  his 
sons  to  take  their  guns  and  guard  the  other  en 
trances,  while  he  took  his  stand  in  the  front  door 
with  an  axe  in  his  hand.  When  the  mob  came  up 
and  demanded  the  Abolitionist,  he  gave  warning 
that  he  would  brain  the  first  man  that  attempted  to 
enter  his  house  without  his  consent.  So  evidently 
in  earnest  was  he  that  the  rowdies,  after  a  little 
bluster,  concluded  to  give  up  the  hunt  and  left  in 
disgust. 


CHAPTER    X 

WANTED,  AN   ANTI-SLAVERY    SOCIETY 

THE  National  Anti-Slavery  Society — the  society 
organized  by  Garrison  and  his  confreres,  and 
which  longest  maintained  its  organization  —made 
one  great  mistake.  It  disbanded.  It  assumed  that 
its  work  was  done  when  African  slavery  in  this 
country  was  pronounced  defunct  by  law.  It  took 
it  for  granted  that  the  enslavement  of  the  colored 
man — not  necessarily  the  negro — was  no  longer  pos 
sible  under  the 'Stars  and  Stripes.  Then  and  there 
it  committed  a  grievous  blunder.  Its  paramount 
error  was  in  assuming  that  a  political  party  could 
for  all  time  be  depended  upon  as  a  party  of  free 
dom.  It  trusted  to  the  assurances  of  politicians 
that  they  would  protect  the  colored  man  in  all  his 
natural  and  acquired  rights,  and  in  that  belief  volun 
tarily  gave  up  the  ghost  and  cast  its  mantle  to  the 
winds. 

Now,  the  fact  is  that  the  National  Anti-Slavery 
Society  was  never  more  needed,  than  it  is  to-day. 
There  is  a  mighty  work  to  be  done  that  was  directly 
in  the  line  of  its  operations.  First  and  foremost,  it 
will  not  be  denied  that  a  citizen  of  our  Republic  who 
is  deprived  of  the  elective  franchise  is  robbed  of  one 
of  his  most  valuable  privileges — one  of  his  most 

79 


8o  The  Abolitionists 

essential  rights.  The  ballot,  under  a  political  sys 
tem  like  ours,  is  both  the  sword  and  the  shield  of 
liberty.  Without  it  no  man  is  really  a  freeman. 
He  does  not  stand  on  an  equality  with  his  fellows. 

Nor  will  it  be  denied  that  the  negro,  although  our 
amended  Constitution  promises  him  all  the  privileges 
of  citizenship,  is  in  many  parts  of  our  country  prac 
tically  divested  of  his  vote.  By  a  species  of  leger 
demain  in  the  communities  in  which  he  is  most 
numerous  and  most  needs  protection,  he  is  to  all 
intents  and  purposes  disfranchised.  What  will  fol 
low  as  the  final  outcome  we  do  not  know,  but  that 
is  the  beginning  of  his  attempted  re-enslavement. 
It  is  beyond  any  question  that  his  return  to  invol 
untary  servitude  in  some  condition  or  conditions, 
the  disarming  him  of  the  ballot  being  the  initial  step 
in  the  proceeding,  is  seriously  contemplated,  if  not 
deliberately  planned.  Indeed,  under  the  name  of 
"peonage"  the  work  of  re-establishing  a  system  of 
slaveholding  that  is  barbarous  in  the  extreme  is 
already  begun.  Men  and  women  have  been  seized 
upon  by  force,  and  upon  the  most  flimsy  pretexts 
have  been  subjected  to  a  bondage  that  in  its  in 
humanities  may  easily  equal  even  the  slavery  of  the 
olden  time.  The  number  of  victims  is  undoubtedly 
much  larger  than  the  general  public  has  any  idea  of. 

Nor  are  there  lacking  signs  of  studied  preparation 
for  the  extension  of  the  system.  The  present  time 
is  full  of  them.  Efforts  to  create  a  prejudice  against 
the  colored  man  arc  visible  in  all  directions.  He  is 
described  as  a  failure  in  the  role  of  freeman.  The 
idleness  and  shiftlessness  of  certain  members  of  his 
race — undoubtedly  altogether  too  numerous — are 


Wanted,  an  Anti-Slavery  Society        81 

dwelt  upon  as  characteristic  of  the  entire  family. 
Scant  praise  is  given  to  those  members  who  are 
doing  well,  and  whose  number  is  encouragingly 
large.  These  are  as  far  as  possible  ignored.  The 
race  problem  is  spoken  of  as  full  of  increasing  difficul 
ties,  and  as  imperatively  demanding  a  change  from 
present  conditions.  The  people  of  the  North  are 
being  especially  indoctrinated  with  such  ideas. 
They  are  told  that  they  must  leave  their  brethren 
of  the  former  slaveholding  States,  and  in  which  the 
negroes  principally  dwell,  to  deal  with  the  issues 
arising  between  the  whites  and  the  blacks;  that 
they — the  Southerners — understand  the  questions 
to  be  settled,  and  that  outsiders  should  withhold 
their  hands  and  their  sympathies.  It  is  none  of 
their  business,  they  are  informed,  while  assurances 
are  freely  given  that  the  people  who,  because  of 
their  experience  with  them,  understand  the  negroes, 
will  take  considerate  care  of  them.  What  kind  of 
care  they  are  taking  of  them  in  certain  quarters  is 
shown  by  recent  incontestable  revelations. 

And  what  has  the  political  party  which,  in  view 
of  its  manifold  professions,  was  supposed  to  have 
the  interests  of  the  negro  in  its  especial  keeping, 
done  about  it?  Nothing  whatever.  It  has  looked 
on  with  the  coolest  indifference.  The  only  concern 
it  has  shown  in  the  matter  has  related  to  the  ques 
tion  of  Congressional  representation  as  dependent 
upon  the  enumeration  of  electors,  and,  in  so  doing, 
has  plainly  intimated  that  if,  through  the  negro's 
political  robbery,  it  can  secure  an  increase  of  par 
tisan  power,  it  is  perfectly  willing  that  the  cause  of 
the  injured  black  man  should  "slide." 


82  The  Abolitionists 

Indifference  in  regard  to  the  rights  of  peoples  of 
color  is  unfortunately  not  the  only  nor  even  the 
greatest  charge  to  be  laid  at  the  door  of  the  Repub 
lican  party.  It  may  be  asserted  that  this  party  has 
become  an  active  aggressor  in  trampling  down  the 
liberties  of  colored  peoples.  As  the  assignee  of 
Spain  in  taking  over  (without  consulting  those  who 
were  most  concerned)  the  control  of  the  territory  of 
the  Philippine  Islands,  it  has  purchased  (and  has 
paid  cash  for)  the  right  to  dominate  from  eight  to 
ten  millions  of  people.  These  people  may,  under 
the  existing  conditions,  be  described  as  being  in  a 
state  of  slavery.  If  a  foreign  people,  say  a  people 
coming  from  the  other  side  of  the  globe,  should 
treat  Americans  as  we  have  treated  the  Filipinos, 
should  deny  to  us  the  right  of  self-government, 
should  send  great  armies  to  chastise  us  for  disobedi 
ence  (or  for  what  they  might  call  "rebellion"),  and 
should  do  this  for  no  better  reason  than  that  our 
skin  was  darker  or  lighter  than  their  own,  we  Ameri 
cans  would  doubtless  consider  ourselves  to  be  in  a 
state  of  slavery.  Why  in  any  sense  is  slavery  in 
Luzon  more  defensible  than  slavery  in  South  Caro 
lina  or  in  Alabama?  If  it  be  wrong  to  keep  in  slav 
ery  the  black  man  in  America  (as  in  theory  at  least 
we  are  all  now  agreed  it  is  wrong),  what  is  the 
justice  in  depriving  of  his  freedom  the  brown- 
skinned  Tagal?  Can  a  bill  of  sale  from  Spain  give 
to  us  any  such  privilege,  if  privilege  it  may  be  called? 
Can  an  agreement  with  Spain  bring  to  naught 
our  responsibilities  under  our  own  Declaration  of 
Independence? 

Although,  owing  to  the  remoteness  of  the  islands, 


Wanted,  an  Anti-Slavery  Society        83 

we  have  as  yet  but  little  trustworthy  knowledge  as 
to  what  has  really  occurred  in  this  new  territory, 
and  possibly  in  any  case  have  not  been  informed  of 
the  things  which  are  most  to  be  condemned,  the  re 
ports  that  have  reached  us  of  barbarities  perpetrated 
upon  a  people  who  never  did  us  any  harm  or  wrong 
ought  certainly  to  awaken  in  American  bosoms 
every  throb  of  pity  and  every  sentiment  of  manli 
ness.  We  have  had  accounts  of  butcheries  called 
"battles"  in  which  have  been  slaughtered  hundreds 
of  almost  defenseless  creatures  for  no  offense  except 
that  of  standing  up  for  their  independence.  It  is 
said  that  certain  districts  that  would  not  acknowledge 
our  mastery  have  been  turned  into  wildernesses,  and 
that  in  these  districts  the  number  of  the  slain  may 
easily  have  equaled  the  victims  of  massacres  in 
Armenia  and  Bessarabia,  massacres  which  we  have 
always  so  strenuously  condemned.  Thousands  of 
men,  women,  and  children  have  perished  at  our  hands 
or  in  connection  with  operations  for  which  we  were 
responsible;  and  in  addition  to  the  taking  of  life 
there  is  record  of  the  infliction  of  serious  cruelties. 
As  assignees  of  Spain,  we  seem  to  have  succeeded 
not  only  to  her  properties  but  to  her  policies  in  the 
treatment  of  subject  races.  We  do  not  know  that 
in  the  greatest  excesses  of  the  bad  colonial  govern 
ment  of  Spaniards  they  ever  inflicted  a  torture  more 
exquisite  than  that  of  the  "water  cure."  How 
many  of  the  perpetrators  of  these  atrocities  have 
been  adequately  punished,  or  how  many  have  been 
punished  at  all? 

It  is  wonderful  with  what  complacency  we  have 
received    the  accounts    of    these    horrible   affairs. 


84  The  Abolitionists 

Nobody  has  been  disturbed.  The  newspapers,  be- 
yond  reporting  the  facts,  have  had  nothing  to  say. 
The  Church  has  been  silent — at  least  that  can  be  said 
of  the  Protestant  Church.  Not  one  brave  or  manly 
word  of  protest  or  condemnation  has  the  writer 
heard,  or  heard  of,  from  a  Protestant  American 
pulpit.  Catholics,  being  victims  and  sufferers,  have 
complained  and  protested.  The  greatest  discomfort 
these  things  have  produced  has  been  occasioned  by 
the  apprehension  that,  through  somebody's  lack 
of  patriotism,  our  flag  may  be  withdrawn  from  the 
field  of  such  glorious  operations.  It  used  to  be  our 
boast  that  Freedom  followed  our  flag.  Now  slavery 
follows  it. 

In  view  of  the  facts  stated  we  can  understand,  not 
only  the  serenity,  but  the  favor  with  which  the  peo 
ple  of  this  country,  or  the  great  body  of  them,  so 
long  looked  upon  the  workings  of  African  slavery, 
and  the  difficulty  which  the  Abolitionists  had  in 
arousing  a  sentiment  of  revulsion  toward  it. 

One  of  the  curious  things  in  this  connection  is  the 
similarity  — the  practical  sameness — of  the  arguments 
used  to  justify  the  Philippine  occupation  and  those 
once  used  to  justify  American  slaveholding.  We 
are  now  working  to  civilize  and  Christianize  the 
Filipinos,  and  were  then  civilizing  and  Christianizing 
the  negroes  with  the  lash  and  the  bludgeon. 

Of  course,  there  are  other  arguments.  Increase 
of  trade  and  wealth,  as  the  result  of  our  appropria 
tion  of  other  peoples'  possessions,  is  freely  predicted. 
It  has  always  been  the  robber's  plea.  That  is  what 
it  is  to-day,  even  when  employed  by  a  professed 
Christian  nation.  Nor  is  it  improved  by  the  fact 


Wanted,  an  Anti-Slavery  Society        85 

that  the  grounds  upon  which  it  is  predicated  and 
urged  are  largely  fallacious.     The  spoliation  of  the 
Philippines  will  never  repay  us  for  the  blood — our 
own  blood — and  treasure  it  has  cost  us,  apart  from 
any  moral  or  humanitarian  consideration.     There  is 
not  one  aspect  in  this  business  that  promises  to  re 
dound  to  our  benefit.     No,   I   won't  say  that;    I 
would  hardly  be  justified  in  going  that  far.     In  one 
particular  the  Philippine  operation   has  profited  a 
considerable   part   of   our   people.      It   has   added 
materially  to  our  Army  and  our  Navy.     The  oppor 
tunity  for  enlargement  in  those  quarters  was,  un 
doubtedly,  the  strongest  inducement  for  our  entering 
upon  a  colonial  policy.     For  a  great  many  people, 
and  especially  in  official  circles,  we  cannot  have  a 
standing  army  that  is  too  large,  nor  too  many  ships 
of  war.     The  more  powerful  those  appendages  of 
our  authority  the  larger  is  the  opening  for  the  kins 
men  and  retainers  of  those  in  high  places,  who  may 
be  seeking  profitable  and  agreeable  employment, 
and  the  more  liberal  the  contributions  of  contractors 
and  jobbers  to  the  sinews  of  partisan  warfare.     Our 
Army  to-day  is  nearly  three  times  what  it  was  five 
years  ago,  although  outside  of  the  Philippines  we 
are  at  peace  with  all  mankind.     Nor  is  that  formida 
ble  advance  at  an  end.     The  Far  East  is  now  certain 
to  be  the  world's  great  battle-ground  for  the  near 
future,  and  since  we  have  entered  that  field  as  the 
master  of  the  Philippines,  like  a  knight  of  the  olden 
time  who  was  ready  to  do  battle  with  all  comers,  we 
must  be  constantly  increasing  our  preparation.     We 
may  not  only  have  to  fight  the  Russians  and  the 
Japanese  and  the  Chinese,   one  or  all,  but  those 


86  The  Abolitionists 

foolish  Filipinos  may  again  take  it  into  their  silly 
heads  that  they  can  govern  themselves  as  well  or 
better  than  we  can  do  it  for  them.  That  means  re 
bellion,  and,  of  course,  chastisement  must  follow. 
As  climatic  conditions  in  that  part  of  the  world  are 
such  that  it  requires  the  presence  of  three  men  in 
the  army  to  supply  the  active  services  of  one,  it  is 
obvious  that  so  long  as  we  adhere  to  our  present 
Asiatic  policy,  we  shall  never  have  an  army  and  a 
navy  large  enough  and  strong  enough  to  meet  the 
requirements  of  our  new  condition. 

Onfall  questions  affecting  human  liberty,  no  one 
can  fail  to  observe  that  the  attitude  of  the  two  great 
political  parties  of  to-day,  is  practically  that  of  the 
two  principal  parties  at  the  time  the  Abolitionists 
began  their  operations.  One  of  them  may  pass  per 
functory  resolutions  against  the  Philippine  crime, 
but  dares  to  say  nothing  about  the  treatment  visited 
upon  the  negro.  The  other  may  say  a  few  compassion 
ate,  but  meaningless,  words  for  the  negro,  but  can 
not  denounce  the  oppression  of  the  Filipinos.  Both 
are  fatally  handicapped  by  their  connections  and 
committals.  Both  are,  in  fact,  pro-slavery,  although 
the  one  in  power,  because  of  its  responsibility  for 
existing  conditions,  is  the  more  criminal  of  the  two. 

[What  this  country  now  needs,  in  the  opinion  of 
the  writer,  is  a  revival  of  Abolitionism,  and  to  that 
end,  as  one  of  the  instrumentalities  that  would  be 
serviceable,  he  holds  that  the  old  National  Anti- 
Slavery  Society  should  be  restored^)  The  most  of 
the  men  and  women  that  made  that  institution  so 
useful  and  honorable,  have  passed  from  the  scenes 
of  their  labors,  but  a  few  of  them  are  left,  and  they 


Wanted,  an  Anti-Slavery  Society        87 

and  such  as  may  feel  like  joining  them,  should  meet 
and  unfurl  the  old  standard  once  more.  There  may 
be  new  associations  looking  to  very  much  the  same 
ends,  but  better  the  old  guard  under  the  old  name. 
It  would  carry  a  prestige  that  no  newer  organization 
could  command.  It  would  create  a  measure  of  confi 
dence  that  would  be  most  strongly  felt.  The  prin 
ciples  and  policies  it  should  urge  are  few  and  simple. 

First:  Let  it  declare  that  the  colored  man  in  this 
country  must  be  permitted  to  enjoy  all  his  rights 
under  the  Constitution  as  it  is,  both  political  and 
personal. 

Second  :  Let  it  declare  that  all  forms  of  servitude, 
including  the  denial  of  political  self-government,  un 
der  the  flag,  as  well  as  under  the  Constitution,  must 
cease. 

And  then  let  it  go  to  work  for  the  results  thus  in 
dicated,  in  the  spirit  and  with  the  confidence  of  the 
old-time  leaders.  The  Society  should  be  revived 
and  re-established,  not  for  a  single  campaign  only, 
or  for  the  rectification  of  such  oppressions  as  are 
now  in  sight,  but  for  all  time.  It  ought  to  be  made 
a  permanent  institution.  It  should  be  so  arranged 
that  the  sons  would  step  into  the  ranks  as  the  fathers 
dropped  out  and  that  new  recruits  would  be  constant 
ly  enlisted.  Thus  reorganized  the  grand  old  institu 
tion  would  be  an  invaluable  watchman  on  the  walls 
of  Freedom's  stronghold.  The  exhortation  to  which  it 
should  listen,  is  that  of  the  poet  Bryant  when  he  says : 

"Oh  not  yet 

Mayst  thou  unloose  thy  corslet,  nor  lay  by 
Thy  sword,  nor  yet,  O  Freedom,  close  thy  lids 
In  slumber,  for  thine  enemy  never  sleeps." 


CHAPTER   XI 

ANTI-SLAVERY    ORATORS 


WILLIAM  CURTIS,  in  one  of  his 

essays,  says  that  "three  speeches  have  made 
the  places  where  they  were  delivered  illustrious  in 
our  history  —  three,  and  there  is  no  fourth."  He 
refers  to  the  speech  of  Patrick  Henry  in  Williams- 
burg,  Virginia,  of  Lincoln  in  Gettysburg,  and  the 
first  address  of  Wendell  Phillips  in  Faneuil  Hall. 

If  it  was  the  purpose  of  Mr.  Curtis  to  offer  the 
three  notable  deliverances  above  mentioned  as  the 
best  and  foremost  examples  of  American  oratory, 
the  author  cannot  agree  with  him.  In  his  opinion 
we  shall  have  but  little  difficulty  in  picking  out  the 
three  entitled  to  that  distinction,  provided  we  go  to 
the  discussion  of  the  slavery  question  to  find  them. 
That  furnished  the  greatest  occasion,  being  with  its 
ramifications  and  developments,  by  far  the  greatest 
issue  with  which  Americans  have  had  to  deal. 

The  three  speeches  to  which  the  writer  refers  were 
the  more  notable  because  they  were  altogether  im 
promptu.  They  were  what  we  call  "off  hand." 
They  were  delivered  in  the  face  of  mobs  or  other 
bitterly  hostile  audiences  —  a  circumstance  that  prob 
ably  contributed  not  a  little  to  their  effectiveness. 

John  Quincy  Adams,  who  was  unquestionably 

ss 


Anti-Slavery  Orators  89 

one  of  the  greatest  of  American  orators,  made 
several  speeches  in  Congress  that  will  always  com 
mand  our  highest  admiration;  but  the  one  to  which 
a  somewhat  extended  reference  is  made  in  another 
chapter,  when  an  attempt  was  made  by  the  slave 
holders  to  expel  him  from  that  body,  easily  ranks 
among  the  first  three  exhibitions  of  American 
eloquence. 

I  quite  agree  with  Mr.  Curtis  in  giving  the  Faneuil 
Hall  speech  of  Wendell  Phillips  a  pre-eminent  place. 
A  meeting  had  been  called  to  denounce  the  murder 
of  Lovejoy,  the  Abolitionist  editor.  The  audience 
was  composed  in  large  part  of  pro-slavery  rowdies, 
who  were  bent  on  capturing  or  breaking  up  the 
meeting.  One  of  their  leaders — a  high  official  of 
the  State  of  Massachusetts,  by  the  way — made  a 
speech  in  which  he  justified  the  murderous  act. 
"That  speech  must  be  answered  here  and  now," 
exclaimed  a  young  man  in  the  audience.  "Answer 
it  yourself,"  shouted  those  about  him.  "I  will," 
was  the  reply,  "if  I  can  reach  the  platform."  To 
the  platform  he  was  assisted,  and  although  an  at 
tempt  was  made  for  a  time  to  howl  him  down,  he 
persisted,  and  before  long  so  interested  and  charmed 
his  hearers  that  his  triumph  was  complete. 

It  did  not  take  the  country  long  to  realize  that  in 
that  young  man,  who  was  Wendell  Phillips,  a  new 
oratorical  luminary  had  arisen.  He  took  up  the 
work  of  lecturing  as  a  profession,  treating  on  other 
subjects  as  well  as  slavery;  but  when  slavery  was 
the  subject  no  charge  was  made  for  his  services. 
Said  Frederic  Hudson,  the  noted  New  York  editor, 
in  1860:  "It  is  probable  that  there  is  not  another 


f)o  The  Abolitionists 

man  in  the  United  States  who  is  ns  much  heard  and 
read  as  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  unless  the  other  man 
be  Wendell  Phillips." 

The  mention  of  Henry  Ward  Becchcr's  name  is 
suggestive  of  oratory  of  the  very  highest  order.  It 
will  not  be  denied  by  any  competent  and  unpreju 
diced  person  that  his  great  speech  in  England — 
there  were  five  addresses,  but  the  substance  was  the 
same— upon  the  American  question  (which  directly 
involved  the  slavery  issue)  during  our  Civil  War 
was  far  and  away  the  finest  exhibition  of  masterful 
eloquence  that  is  to  be  credited  to  any  of  our 
countrymen.  The  world  has  never  beaten  it. 

Mr.  Beecher  found  himself  in  England  by  a  for 
tunate  accident  at  a  most  critical  period  in  our 
national  affairs.  A  crisis  had  there  been  reached. 
A  powerful  party,  including  a  large  majority  of  the 
public  men  of  Great  Britain,  favored  intervention 
in  behalf  of  the  South.  Southern  agents  were  at 
work  all  over  the  kingdom,  and  were  remarkably 
effective  in  propagating  their  views.  It  looked  as 
if  the  Rebel  interest  was  on  the  point  of  winning, 
when  Mr.  Beecher  appeared  on  the  scene.  He  had 
not  gone  to  England  to  make  public  speeches.  He 
was  there  for  health  and  recreation,  but,  realizing 
the  situation  with  his  quick  percept iven ess,  he  took 
up  the  gage  of  battle.  It  was  a  fearful  resolution 
on  his  part.  The  chances  seemed  to  be  all  against 
him.  It  was  one  man  against  thousands.  His  vic 
tory,  however,  was  complete.  II  is  five  great  speeches 
in  the  business  centres  of  England  and  Scotland 
were  not  only  listened  to  by  thousands,  but  they 
went  all  over  the  country  in  the  public  prints. 


Anti-Shivery  Orators  91 

They  completely  changed  the  current  of  public 
opinion. 

Mr.  Beccher's  first  address  was  in  Manchester, 
which,  owing  to  the  interest  of  the  leading  business 
men  of  that  city  in  the  cotton  trade  and  the  furnish 
ing  of  ships  and  supplies  for  blockade  running,  was 
a  seething  hot  bed  of  Rebel  sentiment.  When  he 
arrived  in  that  place  on  the  day  he  was  to  speak,  he 
was  met  at  the  depot  by  friends  with  troubled  faces, 
who  informed  him  that  hostile  placards  —  signifi 
cantly  printed  in  red  colors — had  been  posted  all 
over  the  city,  and,  if  he  persisted  in  trying  to  speak, 
he  would  have  a  very  uncomfortable  reception. 

lie  was  asked  how  he  felt  about  trying  to  go  on. 
"I  am  going  to  be  heard,"  was  his  reply. 

The  best  description  of  the  scene  that  ensued  is 
supplied  in  Mr.  Beecher's  own  words : 

"  The  uproar  would  come  in  on  this  side,  and  then  on 
that.  They  would  put  insulting  questions  and  make  all 
sorts  of  calls  to  me,  and  I  would  wait  until  the  noise  had 
subsided  and  then  get  in  about  five  minutes  of  talk. 
The  reporters  would  get  that  down,  and  then  up  would 
come  another  noise.  Occasionally  I  would  see  things 
that  amused  me,  and  I  would  laugh  outright,  and  the 
crowd  would  stop  to  see  what  I  was  laughing  at.  Then 
I  would  sail  in  with  another  sentence  or  two.  A  good 
many  times  the  crowd  threw  up  questions  that  I  caught 
and  threw  back.  I  may  as  well  at  this  point  mention  a 
thing  that  amused  me  hugely.  There  were  baize  doors 
that  opened  both  ways  into  side  alleys,  and  there  was  a 
huge  burly  Englishman  standing  right  in  front  of  one  of 
these  doors  and  roaring  like  a  bull  of  Bashan.  One  of 
the  policemen  swung  his  elbow  round  and  hit  him  in  the 


92  The  Abolitionists 

belly  and  knocked  him  through  the  doorway,  so  that  the 
last  part  of  his  bawl  was  out  in  the  alleyway.  It  struck 
me  so  ludicrously  to  think  how  the  fellow  must  have 
looked  when  he  found  himself  *  hollering'  outside,  that  I 
could  not  refrain  from  laughing  outright.  The  audience 
immediately  stopped  its  uproar,  wondering  what  I  was 
laughing  at.  That  gave  me  another  chance,  and  I 
caught  on  to  it.  So  we  kept  it  up  for  about  an  hour  and 
a  half  before  the  people  became  so  far  calmed  down  that 
I  could  go  on  peaceably  with  my  speech.  My  audience 
got  to  like  the  pluck  I  showed.  Englishmen  like  a  man 
that  can  stand  on  his  feet  and  give  and  take,  and  so  for 
the  last  hour  I  had  pretty  much  clear  sailing.  The  next 
morning  every  great  paper  in  England  had  the  whole 
speech  down. 

"And  when  the  vote  came  to  be  taken — for  in  Eng 
land  it  is  customary  for  audiences  to  express  their  deci 
sion  on  the  subject  under  discussion — you  would  have 
thought  it  was  a  tropical  thunder-storm  that  swept 
through  the  hall  as  the  Ayes  were  thundered,  while 
the  Nays  were  an  insignificant  and  contemptible  minor 
ity.  It  had  all  gone  on  our  side,  and  such  enthusiasm  I 
never  saw." 

It  has  been  repeatedly  stated,  and  to  this  day  is 
generally  believed, — is  so  stated  in  several  of  Mr. 
Lincoln's  biographies,  I  believe, — that  Mr.  Beecher 
went  to  England  at  the  President's  request,  and  for 
the  purpose  of  making  a  speaking  tour.  The  best 
answer  is  that  given  by  Mr.  Beecher  himself. 

"  It  has  been  asked,"  said  he,  "  whether  I  was  sent 
by  the  government.  The  government  took  no  stock  in 
me  at  that  time.  I  had  been  pounding  Lincoln  in  the 
earlier  years  of  the  war,  and  I  don't  believe  there  was 


Anti-Slavery  Orators  93 

a  man  down  there,  unless  it  was  Mr.  Chase,  who  would 
have  trusted  me  with  anything.  At  any  rate,  I  went  on 
my  own  responsibility." 

But  in  referring  to  Abolition  orators,  and  espe 
cially  orators  whose  experience  it  was  to  encounter 
mobs,  the  writer  desires  to  pay  a  tribute  to  one  of 
them  whose  name  he  does  not  even  know. 

A  meeting  that  was  called  to  organize  an  Anti- 
Slavery  society  in  New  York  City  was  broken  up 
by  a  mob.  All  of  those  in  attendance  made  their 
escape  except  one  negro.  He  was  caught  and  his 
captors  thought  it  would  be  a  capital  joke  to  make 
him  personify  one  of  the  big  Abolitionists.  He  was 
lifted  to  the  platform  and  directed  to  imagine  him 
self  an  Anti-Slavery  leader  and  make  an  Abolition 
speech.  The  fellow  proved  to  be  equal  to  the  occa 
sion.  He  proceeded  to  assert  the  right  of  his  race 
to  the  privileges  of  human  beings  with  force  and 
eloquence.  His  hearers  listened  with  amazement, 
and  possibly  with  something  like  admiration,  until, 
realizing  that  the  joke  was  on  them,  they  pulled  him 
from  the  platform  and  kicked  him  from  the  building. 


CHAPTER   XII 

LINCOLN  AND   DOUGLAS 

IN  speaking  of  the  orators  and  oratory  that  were 
evolved  by  the  Slavery  issue,  there  are  two 
names  that  cannot  be  omitted.  These  are  Abraham 
Lincoln  and  Stephen  A.  Douglas.  It  was  the 
good  fortune  of  the  writer  to  be  an  eye  and  ear 
witness  of  the  closing  bout,  at  Alton,  Illinois,  be 
tween  those  two  political  champions  in  their  great 
debate  of  1858.  The  contrast  between  the  men  was 
remarkable.  Lincoln  was  very  tall  and  spare,  stand 
ing  up,  when  speaking,  straight  and  stiff.  Douglas 
was  short  and  stumpy,  a  regular  roly-poly  man. 
Lincoln's  face  was  calm  and  meek,  almost  immo 
bile.  Me  referred  to  it  in  his  address  as  "my  rather 
melancholy  face."  Although  plain  and  somewhat 
rugged,  I  never  regarded  Lincoln's  face  as  homely. 
I  saw  him  many  times  and  talked  with  him,  after 
the  occasion  now  referred  to.  It  was  a  good  face, 
and  had  many  winning  lines,  Douglas's  counte 
nance,  on  the  other  hand,  was  leonine  and  full  of 
expression.  His  was  a  handsome  face.  When 
lighted  up  by  the  excitement  of  debate  it  could  not 
fail  to  impress  an  audience. 

Lincoln  indulged  in  no  gesticulation.     If  he  had 
been  addressing  a  bench  of  judges  he  would  not 

94 


Lincoln  and  Douglas  95 

have  been  more  impassive  in  his  manner.  He  was 
an  animate,  but  not  an  animated,  bean-pole.  He 
poured  out  a  steady  flow  of  words — three  to  Doug 
las's  two — in  a  simple  and  semi-conversational  tone. 
He  attempted  no  witticisms  and  indulged  in  no 
oratorical  claptrap.  His  address  was  pure  argu 
ment.  Douglas's  manner  was  one  of  excitement, 
and  accompanied  and  emphasized  by  almost  con 
tinuous  bodily  movement.  His  hands  and  his  feet, 
and  especially  that  pliable  face  of  his,  were  all  busy 
talking.  He  said  sharp  things,  evidently  for  their 
immediate  effect  on  his  audience,  and  showed  that 
he  was  not  only  master  of  all  the  arts  of  the  practi 
cal  stump  orator,  but  was  ready  to  employ  them. 

But  the  most  noticeable  difference  was  in  the 
voices  of  the  men.  Douglas  spoke  first,  and  for  the 
first  minute  or  two  was  utterly  unintelligible.  His 
voice  seemed  to  be  all  worn  out  by  his  speaking 
in  that  long  and  principally  open-air  debate.  He 
simply  bellowed.  But  gradually  he  got  command 
of  his  organ,  and  pretty  soon,  in  a  somewhat  labori 
ous  and  painful  way,  it  is  true,  he  succeeded  in 
making  himself  understood. 

Lincoln's  voice,  on  the  contrary,  was  without  a 
quaver  or  a  sign  of  huskiness.  He  had  been  speak 
ing  in  the  open  air  exactly  as  much  as  Douglas,  but 
it  was  perfectly  fresh,  not  a  particle  strained.  It 
was  a  perfect  voice. 

Those  who  wanted  to  understand  Douglas  had  to 
press  up  close  to  the  platform  from  which  he  was 
speaking,  and  there  was  collected  a  dense,  but  not 
very  deep,  crowd.  There  was  no  crowding  in  front 
of  Lincoln  when  he  was  speaking.  He  could  be 


96  The  Abolitionists 

heard  without  it.  There  was  a  line  of  wagons  and 
carriages  on  the  outskirts  of  the  audience,  and  I 
noticed,  when  Lincoln  was  speaking,  that  they  were 
filled  with  comfortably  seated  people  listening  to  his 
address.  They  did  not  need  to  go  any  nearer  to 
him.  The  most  of  the  shouting  was  done  by 
Douglas's  partisans,  composing  a  clear  majority  of 
the  crowd,  but  it  was  very  manifest  that  Lincoln 
commanded  the  attention  of  the  greater  number  of 
those  who  were  interested  in  the  arguments.  He 
did  not  act  as  if  he  cared  for  the  applause  of  the 
multitude.  He  said  nothing,  apparently,  simply  to 
tickle  the  ears  of  his  hearers. 

Rather  strange  was  it  that  the  only  points  on 
which  there  did  not  appear  to  be  much,  if  any, 
difference  between  the  two  men  were  reached  when 
they  came  to  the  propositions  they  advocated. 
Douglas  was  avowedly  pro-slavery.  He  was  talking 
in  southern  Illinois  and  on  the  border  of  Missouri, 
to  which  many  of  his  hearers  belonged,  and  his 
audience  was  mostly  Southern  in  its  feelings.  lie 
was  plainly  trying  to  please  that  element.  He  not 
only  approved  of  slavery  where  it  was,  but  meta 
phorically  jumped  on  the  negro  and  trampled  all 
over  him.  He  denied  that  the  negro  was  a  "man  " 
within  the  meaning  of  the  Declaration  of  Indepen 
dence.  Lincoln,  however,  as  far  as  slavery  in  the 
States  was  involved,  met  Douglas  on  his  own 
ground,  and  "went  him  one  better."  He  said,  "I 
have  on  all  occasions  declared  as  strongly  as  Judge 
Douglas  against  the  disposition  to  interfere  with 
the  existing  institution  of  slavery." 

If  a  stranger  who  knew  nothing  of  the  speakers 


Lincoln  and  Douglas  9? 

and  their  party  associations  had  heard  the  two  men 
on  that  occasion,  he  would  have  concluded  that  one 
was  strongly  in  favor  of  slavery  and  the  other  was 
not  opposed  to  it. 

Their  only  disagreement  was  as  to  slavery  in  the 
Territories,  and  that  was  more  apparent  than  real. 
Lincoln  contended  for  free  soil  through  the  direct 
action  of  the  general  government.  Douglas  advo 
cated  a  roundabout  way  that  led  up  to  the  same 
result.  His  proposition,  which  he  called  " popular 
sovereignty,"  was  to  leave  the  decision  to  the  people 
of  the  Territories,  saying  he  did  not  care  whether 
they  voted  slavery  up  or  voted  it  down.  That  was 
a  practical,  although  indirect  declaration  in  favor  of 
free  soil.  The  outcome  of  the  contests  in  Kansas 
and  California  showed  that  at  that  game  the  free 
States  with  their  superior  resources  were  certain  to 
win.  The  shrewder  slaveholders  recognized  that 
fact,  and  their  antagonism  to  Douglas  grew  accord 
ingly.  They  deliberately  defeated  him  for  the  Presi 
dency  in  1860,  when  he  was  the  regular  candidate  of 
the  Democratic  party,  by  running  Breckenridge  as 
an  independent  candidate.  Otherwise  Mr.  Douglas 
would  have  become  President  of  the  United  States. 
Out  of  a  total  of  4,680,193  votes,  Mr.  Lincoln  had 
only  1,866,631.  The  rest  were  divided  between  his 
three  antagonists. 

As  between  Lincoln  and  Douglas,  who  together 
held  the  controlling  hand,  the  slaveholders  pre 
ferred  Lincoln,  against  whom  they  had  no  personal 
feeling,  while  they  knew  that  his  policy  was  no  more 
dangerous  to  their  interests  than  the  other  man's, 
if  faithfully  adhered  to  and  carried  out.  Besides 


98  The  Abolitionists 

that,  by  this  time  many  of  them  had  reached  that 
state  of  mind  in  which  they  wanted  a  pretext  for 
secession  from  the  Union.  Lincoln's  election  would 
give  them  that  pretext  while  Douglas's  would  not. 

On  a  boat  that  carried  a  portion  of  the  audience, 
including  the  writer,  from  Alton  to  St.  Louis,  after 
the  debate  was  over,  was  a  prominent  Missouri 
Democrat,  afterwards  a  Confederate  leader,  who 
expressed  himself  very  freely.  He  declared  that  he 
would  rather  trust  the  institutions  of  the  South  to 
the  hands  of  a  conservative  and  honest  man  like 
"Old  Abe,"  than  to  those  of  "a  political  jumping- 
jack  like  Douglas."  The  most  of  the  other  South 
ern  men  and  slaveholders  present  seemed  to  concur 
in  his  views. 

It  is  a  fact  that  a  good  many  of  the  Anti-Slavery 
leaders  living  outside  of  Illinois,  and  a  good  many 
of  those  living  within  it,  wanted  the  Republicans  of 
that  State  to  let  Douglas  go  back  to  the  Senate 
without  a  contest,  believing  that  he  would  be  far 
more  useful  to  them  there  than  a  Republican  would 
be.  It  is  not  improbable  that  enough  of  the  Illinois 
Republicans  took  that  view  of  the  matter,  and 
helped  to  give  Douglas  the  victory  in  what  was  a 
very  close  contest. 

A  portion  of  Douglas's  speech  was  a  spirited  de 
fense  of  his  "squatter  sovereignty"  doctrine  against 
the  denunciations  of  members  of  his  own  political 
party,  in  the  course  of  which  he  gave  President 
Buchanan  a  savage  overhauling.  It  showed  him  to 
be  a  master  of  invective. 

"Go  it,  husband;  go  it,  bear,"  was  Mr.  Lincoln's 
comment  on  that  part  of  Douglas's  address. 


Lincoln  and  Douglas  99 

I  went  to  the  debate  with  a  very  strong  prejudice 
against  Douglas,  looking  upon  him  as  one  of  the 
most  time-serving  of  those  Northern  men  whom  the 
Abolitionists  called  "dough-faces."  I  confess  that 
my  views  of  the  man  were  considerably  modified.  I 
admired  the  pluck  he  showed  in  speaking  when  his 
voice  was  in  tatters.  Still  more  did  I  like  the  reso 
lution  he  displayed  in  defying  those  leaders  of  his 
own  party,  including  the  President,  who  wanted  him 
to  retreat  from  the  ground  he  had  taken,  seeing  that 
it  had  become  practically  Anti-Slavery. 

At  the  same  time  I  had  an  almost  worshipful  ad 
miration  for  Lincoln,  whom  I  had  not  before  seen 
or  heard.  I  expected  a  great  deal  from  him.  I 
thought  his  closing  appeal  in  that  great  debate 
would  contain  some  ringing  words  for  freedom.  He 
had,  as  I  supposed,  a  great  opportunity  for  telling 
eloquence.  He  stood  almost  on  the  ground  that 
had  drunk  the  blood  of  Lovejoy,  the  Anti-Slavery 
martyr.  I  felt  that  that  fact  ought  to  inspire  him. 
I  was  disappointed.  Mr.  Lincoln's  speech  was  alto 
gether  colorless.  It  was  an  argument,  able  but  per 
fectly  cold.  It  was  largely  technical.  There  was 
no  sentiment  in  it.  Lovejoy  had  died  in  vain  so  far 
as  that  address  was  concerned.  I  am  free  to  say 
that  I  was  led  to  doubt  whether  Mr.  Lincoln  was 
then  in  hearty  sympathy  with  any  movement  look 
ing  to  the  freedom  of  the  slave,  and  this  impression 
was  not  afterwards  wholly  removed  from  my  mind. 


CHAPTER   XIII 

ANTI-SLAVERY   WOMEN 

MY  father  was  a  subscriber  to  the  National  Era, 
the  Anti-Slavery  weekly  that  was  published 
in  Washington  City  before  the  war  by  Dr.  Gamaliel 
Bailey.  Being  the  youngest  member  of  the  family, 
I  usually  went  to  the  post-office  for  the  paper  on 
the  day  of  its  weekly  arrival.  One  day  I  brought  it 
home  and  handed  it  to  my  father,  who,  as  the  day 
was  warm,  was  seated  outside  of  the  house.  He 
was  soon  apparently  very  much  absorbed  in  his 
reading.  A  call  for  dinner  was  sounded,  but  he 
paid  no  attention  to  it.  The  meal  was  delayed  a 
little  while  and  then  the  call  was  repeated,  but  with 
the  same  result.  At  last  the  meal  proceeded  with 
out  my  father's  presence,  he  coming  in  at  the  close 
and  swinging  the  paper  in  his  hand.  His  explana 
tion,  by  way  of  apology,  was  that  he  had  become 
very  much  interested  in  the  opening  installment  of  a 
story  that  was  begun  in  the  Era,  and  which  he  de 
clared  would  make  a  sensation.  "It  will  make  a 
renovation,"  he  repeated  several  times. 

That  story,  it  is  almost  needless  to  say,  was  Uncle 
Tom's  Cabin,  and  it  is  altogether  needless  to  say 
that  it  fully  accomplished  my  father's  prediction  as 
to  its  sensational  effects.  Since  the  appearance  of 

100 


Anti-Slavery  Women  101 

the  Bible  in  a  form  that  brought  it  home  to  the 
common  people,  there  has  been  no  .work  in  the 
English  language  so  extensively  read.  The  author's 
name  became  at  once  a  cynosure  the  world  over. 
When  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  the  writer's  distin 
guished  brother,  delivered  his  first  lecture  in  Eng 
land,  he  was  introduced  to  the  audience  by  the 
chairman  as  the  Reverend  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
Stowe. 

The  way  in  which  the  idea  of  writing  the  book 
came  to  the  author  was  significant  of  the  will  that 
produced  it.  A  lady  friend  wrote  Mrs.  Stowe  a 
letter  in  which  she  said,  "If  I  could  use  a  pen  as 
you  can,  I  would  write  something  that  would  make 
the  whole  nation  feel  what  an  accursed  thing  slavery 
is."  When  the  letter  reached  its  destination,  and 
Mrs.  Stowe  came  to  the  passage  above  quoted,  as 
the  story  is  told  by  a  friend  who  was  present,  she 
sprang  to  her  feet,  crushed  the  letter  in  her  hand  in 
the  intensity  of  her  feeling,  and  with  an  expression 
on  her  face  of  the  utmost  determination,  exclaimed, 
"If  I  live,  I  will  write  something  that  will  do  that 
thing." 

The  circumstances  under  which  she  executed  her 
great  task  would  ordinarily  be  looked  upon  as  alto 
gether  prohibitory.  She  was  the.  wife  of  a  poor 
minister  and  school-teacher.  To  eke  out  the  family 
income  she  took  boarders.  She  had  five  children  of 
her  own,  who  were  too  young  to  be  of  any  material 
assistance,  and,  in  addition,  she  occasionally  har 
bored  a  waif  that  besought  her  protection  when 
fleeing  from  slavery.  Necessarily  the  most  of  her 
time  was  spent  in  the  kitchen.  There,  surrounded 


102  The  Abolitionists 

by  meats  and  vegetables  and  cooking  appliances, 
with  just  enough  of  the  common  deal  table  cleared 
away  to  give  space  for  her  writing  materials,  she 
composed  and  made  ready  for  the  publisher  by  far 
the  most  remarkable  work  of  fiction  this  country 
has  produced.  Slavery  is  dead,  but  Mrs.  Stowe's 
masterpiece  lives,  and  is  likely  to  live  with  growing 
luster  as  long  as  our  free  institutions  survive,  which 
it  is  to  be  hoped  will  be  forever. 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  early  workers  in  the 
Abolition  cause  was  Mrs.  Lucretia  Mott,  a  little 
Quaker  woman  of  Pennsylvania.  The  writer  saw 
her  for  the  last  time  shortly  before  her  death.  She 
was  then  acting  as  presiding  officer  of  an  "Equal 
Rights" — meaning  equal  suffrage — meeting.  Sit 
ting  on  one  hand  was  Susan  B.  Anthony,  and  on  the 
other  Mrs.  Elizabeth  Cady  Stanton,  and  next  to  one 
of  them  sat  a  stately  negro. 

She  was  then  an  aged  woman,  but  her  eye  seemed 
to  be  as  bright  and  her  movements  as  alert  as  they 
had  ever  been.  Framed  by  her  becoming  Quaker 
bonnet,  which  she  retained  in  her  official  position, 
the  face  of  the  handsome  old  lady  would  have  been 
a  splendid  subject  for  an  artist. 

Mrs.  Mott  gave  much  of  her  time  and  all  the 
means  she  could  control  to  the  cause  of  the  slave. 
She  was  an  exceedingly  spirited  and  eloquent 
speaker.  On  one  lecturing  tour  she  traveled  twenty- 
four  hundred  miles,  the  most  of  the  way  in  old- 
fashioned  stage-coaches.  By  a  number  of  taverns 
she  was  denied  entertainment. 

Like  other  pioneers  in  the  same  movement,  Mrs. 
Mott  was  the  victim  of  numerous  mobbings.  One 


Anti-Slavery  Women  103 

incident  shows  her  courage  and  resourcefulness. 
An  AntKSlavery  meeting  she  was  attending  was 
broken  up  by  rowdies,  and  some  of  the  ladies  pres 
ent  were  greatly  frightened.  Seeing  this  Mrs.  Mott 
asked  the  gentleman  who  was  escorting  her,  to  leave 
her  and  assist  some  of  the  others  who  were  more 
timid.  "But  who  will  take  care  of  you?  "  he  asked. 
"This  man,"  she  answered,  lightly  laying  her  hand 
on  the  arm  of  one  of  the  roughest  of  the  mob.  The 
man,  completely  surprised,  responded  by  respect 
fully  conducting  her  through  the  tumult  to  a  place 
of  safety. 

But  before  Mrs.  Stowe  and  Mrs.  Mott  had  taken 
up  the  work  for  the  bondman,  two  other  remarkable 
women  had  become  interested  in  his  cause.  Their 
history  has  some  features  that  the  most  accom 
plished  novel-writer  could  not  improve  upon.  They 
were  sisters,  known  as  the  Grimke  sisters,  Sarah 
and  Angelina,  the  hitter  becoming  the  wife  of  Theo 
dore  W.  Weld,  a  noted  Abolition  lecturer.  They 
were  daughters  of  a  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
South  Carolina,  their  early  home  being  in  Charleston. 

The  family  was  of  the  highest  pretension,  being 
related  to  the  Rhetts,  the  Barnwells,  the  Pickenses, 
and  other  famous  representatives  of  the  Palmetto 
aristocracy.  It  was  wealthy,  and  of  course  had 
many  slaves.  The  girls  had  their  colored  atten 
dants,  whose  only  service  was  to  wait  upon  them 
and  do  their  bidding.  That  circumstance  finally 
led.  to  trouble. 

At  that  time  there  was  a  statute  in  South  Carolina 
against  teaching  slaves  to  read  and  write.  The 
penalties  were  fine  and  imprisonment.  The  Grimke" 


io4  The  Abolitionists 

girls,  however,  had  little  respect  for  or  fear  of  that 
law.  The  story  of  their  offending  is  told  by  Sarah. 
Her  attendant,  when  she  was  little  more  than  a 
child,  was  a  colored  girl  of  about  the  same  age. 
She  says, 

"  I  took  an  almost  malicious  satisfaction  in  teaching 
my  little  waiting  maid  at  night,  when  she  was  supposed 
to  be  occupied  in  combing  and  brushing  my  long  hair. 
The  light  was  put  out,  the  key-hole  screened,  and  flat  on 
our  stomachs  before  the  fire,  with  the  spelling-book 
under  our  eyes,  we  defied  the  law  of  South  Carolina." 

South  Carolina  was  long  noted  for  its  rebels,  but 
it  never  had  a  more  interesting  one  than  the  author 
of  the  above  narrative ;  nor  a  braver  one. 

As  the  sisters  grew  up,  they  more  and  more 
showed  their  dislike  of  slavery  and  their  disposition 
to  aid  such  colored  people  as  were  within  their 
circle.  Such  conduct  could  not  escape  observation, 
and  the  result  was  their  banishment  from  their 
Southern  home.  They  were  given  the  alternative 
of  "behaving  themselves"  or  going  North  to.  live. 
They  were  not  long  in  deciding,  and  they  became 
residents  of  Philadelphia.  Here  they  joined  the 
Quakers,  because  of  their  coincidence  of  views  on 
the  slavery  question.  They  had  before  been  Pres 
byterians,  having  been  raised  as  such.  They  be 
came  industrious  and  noted  Anti-Slavery  lecturers. 
To  one  of  them  is  to  be  credited  a  notable  oratorical 
achievement. 

Being  no  longer  able  to  ignore  the  growing  Anti- 
Slavery  sentiment  of  its  constituency,  the  Massa- 


Anti-Slavery  Women  105 

chusetts  Legislature  in  1838  appointed  a  committee 
to  consider  the  part  that  that  State  had  in  the  sub 
ject  of  slavery,  and  especially  in  connection  with 
slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  The  committee 
asked  an  expression  of  their  views  from  those  enter 
taining  different  sentiments  on  the  subject.  The 
Anti-Slavery  people  invited  Angelina  Grimke"  to 
represent  them.  The  sessions  of  the  committee 
were  to  be  held  in  the  great  hall  of  the  Legislature  in 
the  State  House,  where,  up  to  that  time,  no  woman 
had  ever  spoken.  The  chairman  of  the  committee, 
however,  consented  that  Miss  Grimke"  should  be 
heard,  and  the  fact  that  she  was  a  woman  probably 
helped  to  bring  out  an  immense  audience. 

She  spoke  for  two  hours,  and  then,  being  asked 
to  speak  again,  at  the  next  meeting,  she  spoke  for 
two  hours  more.  The  impression  she  produced 
may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  the  chairman  of 
the  committee  was  in  tears  nearly  the  whole  time 
she  was  speaking.  The  effect  upon  all  who  heard 
her  was  admitted  to  be  very  great. 

The  sincerity  of  these  women  was  put  to  an  un 
usual  test.  They  had  a  brother  who  remained  in 
South  Carolina,  where  he  was  a  prominent  citizen 
and  a  large  slave-owner.  Like  many  sharing  the 
privileges  of  "the  institution,"  he  led  a  double  life. 
He  was  married  to  a  white  woman  by  whom  he  had 
children.  He  also  had  a  family  by  a  colored  woman 
who  was  one  of  his  slaves.  In  his  will  he  bequeathed 
his  slave  family  to  a  son  by  his  lawful  wife,  with  the 
stipulation  that  they  should  not  be  sold  or  unkindly 
treated. 

Of  these  things  the  Grimkd  sisters  knew  nothing 


io6  The  Abolitionists 

until  after  the  war  which  had  freed  their  illegitimate 
relatives.  Then  all  the  facts  came  to  their  knowl 
edge.  What  should  they  do  about  it?  was  the  ques 
tion  that  immediately  confronted  them.  Should 
they — "Carolina's  high-souled  daughters,"  as  Whit- 
tier  describes  them,  and  not  without  some  part  in 
the  pride  of  the  family  to  which  they  belonged 
—  acknowledge  such  a  disreputable  relationship? 
Not  a  day  nor  an  hour  did  they  hesitate.  They 
sent  for  their  unfortunate  kinspeople,  accepted 
them  as  blood  connections,  and  took  upon  them 
selves  the  duty  of  promoting  their  interests  as  far 
as  it  was  in  their  power  to  do  so. 

Although  a  quiet  and  retiring  person,  and,  more 
over,  so  much  of  an  invalid  that  the  greater  part  of 
her  time  was  necessarily  passed  in  a  bed  of  sickness, 
a  New  England  woman  had  much  to  do  with  pub 
lishing  the  doctrines  of  Abolitionism,  through  the 
lips  of  the  most  eloquent  man  in  the  country.  She 
was  the  wife  of  Wendell  Phillips,  the  noted  Anti- 
Slavery  lecturer. 

"My  wife  made  me  an  Abolitionist,"  said  Phillips. 
How  the  work  was  done  is  not  without  its  romantic 
interest. 

It  was  several  years  before  he  made  his  meteoric 
appearance  before  the  public  as  a  platform  talker, 
and  while  yet  a  law  student,  that  Phillips  met  the 
lady  in  question.  The  interview,  as  described  by 
one  of  the  parties,  certainly  had  its  comical  aspect. 
"I  talked  Abolitionism  to  him  all  the  time  we  were 
together,"  said  Mrs.  Phillips,  as  she  afterwards  re 
lated  the  affair.  Phillips  listened,  and  that  he  was 
not  surfeited  nor  disgusted  appears  from  the  fact 


Anti-Slavery .  Women 


107 


that  he  went  again  and  again  for  that  sort  of 
entertainment. 

When  Phillips  asked  for  her  hand,  as  the  story 
goes,  she  asked  him  if  he  was  fully  persuaded  to  be 
a  friend  of  the  slave,  leaving  him  to  infer  that  their 
union  was  otherwise  impossible. 

"My  life  shall  attest  the  sincerity  of  my  conver 
sion,  ' '  was  his  gallant  reply. 


CHAPTER   XIV 

MOBS 

^  * 

IN  his  Recollections,  the  Rev.  Samuel  T.  May,  who 
was  one  of  the  most  faithful  and  zealous  of  the 
Anti-Slavery  pioneers,  and  belonged  to  that  band 
of  devoted  workers  who  were  known  as  Abolition 
lecturers,  tells  of  his  experience  in  delivering  an 
Anti-Slavery  address  in  the  sober  New  England  city 
of  Haverhill. 

"It  was  a  Sabbath  evening,"  he  says.  "I  had 
spoken  about  fifteen  minutes  when  the  most  hideous 
outcries — yells  and  screeches — from  a  crowd  of  men  and 
boys,  who  had  surrounded  the  house,  startled  us,  and 
then  came  heavy  missiles  against  the  doors  and  the 
blinds  of  the  windows.  I  persisted  in  speaking  for  a 
few  minutes,  hoping  the  doors  and  blinds  were  strong 
enough  to  withstand  the  attack.  But  presently  a  heavy 
stone  broke  through  one  of  the  blinds,  scattered  a  pane 
of  glass,  and  fell  upon  the  head  of  a  lady  sitting  near 
the  center  of  the  hall.  She  uttered  a  shriek  and  fell 
bleeding  on  the  floor." 

There  was  a  panic,  of  course,  and  the  Abolition 
lecturer  would  have  been  roughly  handled  by  the 
mob  if  a  young  lady,  a  sister  of  the  poet  Whittier, 
had  not  taken  him  by  the  arm,  and  walked  with  him 

1 08 


Mobs  109 

through  the  astonished  crowd.  They  did  not  feel 
like  attacking  a  woman. 

There  was  nothing  unusual,  except  the  part  per 
formed  by  the  young  lady,  in  the  affair  described  in 
the  foregoing  narrative.  Mobs  were  of  constant 
occurrence  in  the  period  of  which  we  are  speaking. 
It  was  not  in  the  slave  States  that  they  were  most 
frequent.  Northern  communities  that  were  regarded 
as  absolutely  peaceable  and  perfectly  moral  thought 
nothing  of  an  anti-Abolitionist  riot  now  and  then. 
They  occurred  "away  up  North  "  and  "away  down 
East."  Even  sleepy  old  Nantucket,  in  its  sedentary 
repose  by  the  sea,  woke  up  long  enough  to  mob  a 
couple  of  Abolition  lecturers,  a  man  and  a  woman. 

The  community  in  which  the  writer  resided  when 
a  boy,  was  fully  up  to  the  pacific  standard  of  most 
Northern  neighborhoods.  Yet  it  was  the  scene  of 
many  turmoils  growing  out  of  Anti-Slavery  meet 
ings.  The  district  schoolhouse,  which  was  the  only 
public  building  in  the  village  that  was  open  for  such 
gatherings,  called  for  frequent  repairs  on  account  of 
damages  done  by  mobs.  Broken  windows  and  doors 
were  often  in  evidence,  and  stains  from  mud-balls, 
decayed  vegetables,  and  antiquated  eggs,  which  no 
body  took  the  trouble  to  remove,  were  nearly  always 
visible. 

On  one  occasion,  at  an  evening  meeting,  the  lec 
turer  was  a  young  professor,  who  was  "down"  from 
Oberlin  College,  against  which,  as  "an  Abolition 
hole,"  there  was  a  very  strong  prejudice.  He  had 
not  got  more  than  well  started,  when  rocks,  bricks, 
and  other  missiles  began  to  crash  through  the  win 
dows.  The  mob  was  resolved  to  punish  that  young 


no  The  Abolitionists 

man,  and  had  come  prepared  to  give  him  a  coating 
of  unsavory  mixture.  He  was  a  preacher  as  well  as 
a  teacher,  and  his  "store  clothes"  were  likely  to  be 
tray  him ;  but  some  thoughtful  person  had  brought 
an  old  drab  overcoat  and  a  rough  workman's  cap, 
and  arrayed  in  these  garments  he  walked  through 
the  crowd  without  his  identity  being  suspected. 

But  another  party  was  not  so  fortunate.  He  was 
a  respected  citizen  of  the  village,  an  elder  in  the 
Presbyterian  church,  and  a  strong  pro-slavery  man. 
He  dressed  in  black  and  his  appearance  was  not 
unlike  that  of  the  lecturer.  By  some  hard  luck  he 
happened  to  be  passing  that  way  when  the  crowd 
was  looking  for  the  Abolitionist,  and  was  dis 
covered.  "There  he  goes,"  was  the  cry  that  was 
raised,  and  a  fire  of  eggs  and  other  things  was 
opened  upon  him.  He  reached  his  home  in  an 
awful  plight,  and  it  was  charged  that  his  conversa 
tion  was  not  unmixed  with  profanity. 

On  another  occasion  the  writer  was  present  when 
the  friends  of  the  lecturer  undertook  to  convey  him 
to  a  place  of  safety.  They  formed  a  circle  about 
him  and  moved  away  while  the  mob  followed,  hurl 
ing  eggs  and  clods  and  sticks  and  whatever  else 
came  handy.  We  kept  quietly  on  our  way  until  we 
reached  a  place  in  the  road  that  had  been  freshly 
graveled,  and  where  the  surface  was  covered  with 
stones  just  suited  to  our  use.  Here  we  halted,  and, 
with  rocks  in  hand,  formed  a  line  of  battle.  It  took 
only  one  volley  to  put  the  enemy  to  rout,  and  we 
had  no  further  trouble. 

At  last,  after  several  men  had  been  prevented 
from  speaking  in  our  village,  the  services  of  a  female 


Mobs  1 1 1 

lecturer  were  secured.  The  question  then  was, 
whether  the  mob  would  be  so  ungallant  as  to  dis 
turb  a  woman.  The  matter  was  settled  by  the 
rowdies  on  that  occasion  being  more  than  usually 
demonstrative.  The  lecturer  showed  great  courage 
and  presence  of  mind.  She  closed  the  meeting  in 
due  form,  and  then  walked  calmly  through  the 
noisy  throng  that  gave  her  no  personal  molestation 
or  insult.  Deliberately  she  proceeded  to  a  place  of 
safety — and  then  went  into  hysterics. 

Finding  that  it  was  impossible  to  hold  undisturbed 
public  meetings,  the  Abolitionists  adopted  a  plan 
of  operations  that  was  altogether  successful.  They 
met  in  their  several  homes,  taking  them  in  order, 
and  there  the  subject  they  were  interested  in  was 
uninterruptedly  discussed.  Intelligent  opponents 
of  their  views  were  invited  to  attend,  and  frequently 
did  so.  So  warm  were  the  discussions  that  arose 
that  the  meetings  sometimes  lasted  for  entire  days, 
and  conversions  were  not  unusual. 

It  was  in  one  of  these  neighborhood  gatherings 
that  the  writer  first  became  an  active  Anti-Slavery 
worker.  He  had  memorized  one  of  Daniel  O'Con- 
nell's  philippics  against  American  slavery,  and,  be 
ing  given  the  opportunity,  declaimed  it  with  much 
earnestness.  After  that  he  was  invited  to  all  the 
meetings,  and  had  on  hand  a  stock  of  selections  for 
delivery,  his  favorite  being  Whittier's  Slave  Mother's 
Lament  over  the  Loss  of  Her  Daughters  : 

"  Gone,  gone — sold  and  gone 

To  the  rice  swamp  dank  and  lone, 
Where  the  slave  whip  ceaseless  swings, 
Where  the  noisome  insect  stings; 


1 1 2  The  Abolitionists 

Where  the  fever  demon  strews 

Poison  with  the  falling  dews; 

Where  the  sickly  sunbeams  glare 

Through  the  hot  and  misty  air. 
Gone,  gone — sold  and  gone 
To  the  rice  swamp  dank  and  lone, 
From  Virginia's  hills  and  waters — 
Woe  is  me  my  stolen  daughters!  " 

It  was  marvelous  how  little  damage  all  the  mobs 
effected.  Lovejoy  of  Illinois  was  killed  —  a  great 
loss— and  occasionally  an  Abolitionist  lecturer  got  a 
bloody  nose  or  a  sore  shin.  Professor  Hudson,  of 
Oberlin  College,  used  to  say  that  the  injury  he  most 
feared  was  to  his  clothes.  He  carried  with  him  what 
he  called  "a  storm  suit,"  which  he  wore  at  evening 
meetings.  It  showed  many  marks  of  battle. 

Among  those  who  suffered  real  physical  injury 
was  Fred.  Douglass,  the  runaway  slave.  While  in 
bondage  he  was  often  severely  punished,  but  he  en 
countered  rougher  treatment  in  the  North  than  in 
the  South.  He  was  attacked  by  a  mob  while  lectur 
ing  in  the  State  of  Indiana;  was  struck  to  the  earth 
and  rendered  senseless  by  blows  on  the  head  and 
body,  and  for  a  time  his  life  was  supposed  to  be  in 
danger.  Although  in  the  main  he  recovered,  his 
right  hand  was  always  crippled  in  consequence  of 
some  of  its  bones  having  been  broken. 


CHAPTER  XV 

ANTI-SLAVERY   MARTYRS 

IF  any  one  is  desirous  of  estimating  the  extent  of 
the  sacrifice  of  life,  of  treasure,  of  home  and 
family  comforts,  and  of  innumerable  fair  hopes  that 
the  ii.stitution  of  slavery,  in  its  struggle,  not  merely 
for  existence,  but  for  supremacy,  cost  this  country, 
let  him  visit  a  government  cemetery  in  the  neigh 
borhood  of  one  of  the  great  battle-fields  of  the  Re 
bellion,  and  there,  while  looking  down  the  long 
avenues  lined  with  memorial  stones  that  a  grateful 
country  has  set  up,  make  inquiry  as  to  the  number 
of  those  that  are  there  bivouacked  "in  fame's  eternal 
camping  ground."  Some  idea — a  faint  one  it  is  true 
— will  then  be  had  of  the  multitudes  that  gave  up  all 
they  possessed  that  liberty  might  live  and  rule  in 
this  fair  land  of  ours.  .  They  were  martyrs  in  the 
very  highest  sense  to  Freedom's  immeasurable 
cause.  The  war  was  the  product  of  slavery.  It 
was  the  natural  outcome  of  the  great  moral  conflict 
that  had  so  long  raged  in  this  country.  It  was 
simply  the  development  of  an  agitation  that  had 
begun  on  other  lines. 

But  there  were  martyrs  to  the  cause  of  freedom 
before  the  war.     Everybody  knows  more  or  less  of 
the  story  of  John  Brown,  of  Ossawatomie,  whose 
8  "3 


ii4  The  Abolitionists 

soul  kept  "marching  on,"  although  his  body  was 
"a-mouldering  in  the  grave." 

There  was  another  case  involving  the  surrender  of 
life  to  that  cause,  which  has  always  struck  me  as 
having  stronger  claims  to  our  sympathies  than 
that  of  John  Brown  and  his  comrades  in  self- 
sacrifice. 

I  have  already  referred  to  Elijah  P.  Lovejoy 
who  was  a  young  Congregational  clergyman,  who 
went  from  the  State  of  Maine  to  St.  Louis,  Mis- 
souri,  in  1839.  ^e  became  the  editor  of  a  re 
ligious  journal  in  which  he  expressed,  in  very 
moderate  terms,  an  opinion  that  was  not  favorable 
to  slave-holding.  The  supporters  of  the  institution 
were  aroused  at  once.  They  demanded  a  retraction. 

)  "I  have  sworn  eternal  hostility  to  slavery,  and  by 
the  blessing  of  God  I  will  never  go  back,"  was  his 
reply.  He  also  declared,  "We  have  slaves  here, 

|  but  I  am  not  one  of  them." 

It  was  deemed  advisable  by  Mr.  Lovejoy  and  his 
friends  to  move  his  printing  establishment  to  Alton, 
opposite  Missouri,  in  the  free  State  of  Illinois. 
There,  however,  a  pro-slavery  antagonism  immedi 
ately  developed.  His  press  was  seized  and  thrown 
into  the  Mississippi  River.  The  same  fate  awaited 
two  others  that  were  procured.  But,  undismayed, 
Mr.  Lovejoy  and  his  friends  once  more  decided  that 
their  rights  and  liberties  should  not  be  surrendered 
without  a  further  effort.  Another  press  was  sent 
for.  But  in  the  meanwhile  a  violent  public  agitation 
had  arisen.  At  the  instance  of  certain  pro-slavery 
leaders  in  the  community  a  public  meeting  had 
been  called  to  denounce  the  Abolitionists.  Mr. 


Anti-Slavery  Martyrs  115 

Lovejoy  was  invited  to  attend  it  and  declare  what 
he  would  do. 

"Gentlemen,"  said  he,  "as  long  as  I  am  an  Amer 
ican  citizen ;  as  long  as  American  blood  runs  in  my 
veins,  I  shall  hold  myself  at  liberty  to  speak,  to 
write,  and  to  publish  whatever  I  please  on  any  sub 
ject,  being  amenable  to  the  laws  of  my  country  for 
the  same." 

The  fourth  press  arrived.  It  was  landed  from  a 
passing  boat  in  the  small  hours  of  the  morning,  and 
was  safely  conveyed  to  a  warehouse  where  Mr. 
Lovejoy  and  several  of  his  friends  assembled  with  a 
view  to  its  protection.  What  followed  is  thus 
described : 

"An  hour  or  two  afterwards  there  came  from  the 
grog-shops  a  crowd  of  people  who  knocked  at  the  door 
and  demanded  the  press.  One  of  the  owners  of  the 
warehouse  informed  them  it  would  not  be  given  up. 
Presenting  a  pistol,  the  leader  of  the  mob  announced 
that  they  were  resolved  to  have  the  press  at  any  cost. 
Stones  were  thrown,  windows  broken,  and  shots  were 
fired  at  the  building.  The  cry  of  '  burn  them  out '  was 
raised.  Ladders  were  procured,  and  some  of  the  rioters 
mounted  to  the  roof  of  the  building  and  set  it  on  fire. 
Mr.  Lovejoy  at  this  point  stepped  out  of  the  building 
for  the  purpose  of  having  a  talk  with  his  enemies,  when 
he  was  fired  upon.  He  received  five  balls,  three  in  his 
breast.  He  was  killed  almost  instantly." 

The  animosity  of  his  enemies  was  such  that  they 
followed  his  remains  with  scoffings  and  insults  on 
its  way  to  the  grave. 

But  the  most  cruel  and  brutal  persecutions  by  the 


ii6  The  Abolitionists 

slave  power  were  not  always  those  that  involved  the 
sacrifice  of  life. 

In  Canterbury,  in  the  State  of  Connecticut,  lived 
a  Quaker  lady  of  the  name  of  Prudence  Crandall. 
She  conducted  a  school  for  young  ladies.  Among 
those  she  admitted  was  a  colored  girl.  The  fact 
becoming  known,  objection  was  raised  by  the  citi 
zens  of  the  place.  The  position  in  which  Miss 
Crandall  was  placed  was  a  most  trying  one.  Having 
invested  all  her  means  in  the  school  building  and  its 
equipment,  she  was  confronted  with  the  alternative 
of  losing  her  business  and  her  property,  or  dismiss 
ing  the  colored  student  who  had  done  no  wrong. 
She  chose  to  stand  by  her  principles. 

A  public  meeting  was  called,  and  a  resolution  to 
prevent  the  maintenance  of  the  school,  if  colored 
students  were  admitted,  was  adopted  by  the  citi 
zens.  Nevertheless,  that  brave  Quakeress  opened 
her  doors  to  several  colored  young  women.  That 
brought  the  issue  to  a  head,  and  then  began  a  sys 
tem  of  most  remarkable  persecutions.  The  school 
building  was  bombarded  with  clubs  and  stones,  the 
proprietress  found  the  stores  of  the  village  closed 
against  her,  and  the  young  lady  students  were 
grossly  insulted  when  they  appeared  upon  the 
streets.  Even  the  well  from  which  drinking  water 
was  obtained  was  polluted. 

Finding  that  there  was  no  law  in  Connecticut 
under  which  the  instruction  of  colored  people  could 
be  prohibited  and  punished,  the  enemies  of  Miss 
Crandall  went  to  the  Legislature  of  the  State  and 
asked  for  such  an  enactment,  and,  to  the  eternal 
disgrace  of  that  body,  their  request  was  complied 


Anti-Slavery  Martyrs  117 

with.  It  was  made  a  crime  in  Connecticut  to  in 
struct  colored  people  in  the  rudiments  of  an  ordi 
nary  education. 

Miss  Crandall,  as  she  made  no  change  in  her 
course  of  action,  was  arrested,  brought  before  a 
committing  magistrate,  and  sent  to  jail.  A  man 
had  shortly  before  been  confined  in  the  same  prison 
for  the  murder  of  his  wife,  and  therefrom  had  gone 
to  execution.  Miss  Crandall  was  confined  in  the 
cell  this  man  had  occupied.  Other  indignities  were 
heaped  upon  this  devoted  and  courageous  lady. 
Physicians  refused  to  attend  the  sick  of  her  house 
hold,  and  the  trustees  of  the  church  she  was  ac 
customed  to  attend  notified  her  that  she  and  the 
members  of  her  family  were  denied  admission  to 
that  sanctuary. 

Miss  Crandall  was  finally  convicted  of  the  crime 
with  which  she  was  charged,  but  the  case,  being 
carried  to  the  highest  court  of  the  State,  was  dis 
missed  on  a  technicality.  But,  although  the  legal 
prosecution  of  this  poor  woman  reached  an  end,  her 
enemies  did  not  cease  their  opposition.  The  mob 
made  an  attack  upon  her  dwelling,  which  was  also 
her  schoolhouse.  Doors  and  windows  were  broken 
in,  and  the  building  was  so  thoroughly  wrecked  as 
to  be  uninhabitable.  Having  no  money  with  which 
to  make  repairs,  she  was  forced  to  abandon  the 
structure  and  her  educational  business  at  the  same 
time. 

The  Crandall  family  became  noted  for  its  martyrs. 
A  brother  of  Prudence  Crandall  was  Dr.  Reuben 
Crandall,  of  Washington  City.  He  was  a  man  of 
high  attainments,  being  a  lecturer  in  a  public  scien- 


u8  The  Abolitionists 

tific  institution.  While  engaged  in  his  office  he  re 
ceived  some  packages  that  had  been  wrapped  in 
newspapers,  among  which  happened  to  be  a  copy 
or  two  of  Abolition  journals.  At  the  request  of  a 
gentleman  who  was  present  at  the  unpacking  he 
gave  him  one  of  the  publications.  Having  looked 
it  over  the  gentleman  dropped  it,  where  it  was 
picked  up  by  some  one  who  was  on  the  lookout  for 
incendiary  publications.  No  little  excitement  fol 
lowed  its  discovery.  The  community  was  aroused. 
Indeed,  so  great  was  the  agitation  occasioned  that 
Dr.  Crandall,  to  whom  the  inhibited  paper  had  been 
traced,  was  in  great  physical  danger  from  mob  vio 
lence.  He  was  arrested,  and,  partly  to  save  his  life, 
was  thrust  into  jail,  where  he  remained  for  eight 
months.  He  was  tried  and,  although  acquitted, 
was  really  made  the  subject  of  capital  punishment. 
Tuberculosis  developed  as  the  result  of  his  incarcera 
tion,  and  death  soon  followed. 

Of  many  cases  of  the  kind  that  might  be  cited, 
perhaps  none  is  more  strikingly  illustrative  than 
that  of  Charles  Turner  Torrey,  a  New  England 
man.  He  was  accused  of  helping  a  slave  to  escape 
from  the  city  of  Baltimore,  and  being  convicted  on 
what  was  said  to  be  perjured  testimony,  was  sent  to 
the  penitentiary  for  a  long  term  of  years.  The  con 
finement  was  fatal,  a  galloping  consumption  merci 
fully  putting  a  speedy  end'  to  his  confinement.  And 
then  a  remarkable  incident  occurred.  Torrey  was 
a  minister  in  good  standing  of  the  Congregational 
denomination,  and  also  a  member  of  the  Park 
Avenue  Church  of  Boston.  Arrangements  were 
made  for  funeral  exercises  in  that  church,  but  its 


Anti-Slavery  Martyrs  119 

managers,  taking  alarm  at  the  threats  of  certain 
pro-slavery  men,  withdrew  their  permission  and 
locked  the  sanctuary's  doors.  Slavery  punished  the 
dead  as  well  as  the  living. 

The  case  of  Amos  Dresser,  a  young  Southerner, 
may  not  improperly  be  mentioned  here.  He  had 
gone  to  a  Northern  school,  and  had  become  a  con 
vert  to  Abolitionism.  He  went  to  Nashville,  Ten 
nessee,  to  canvass  for  a  book  called  the  Cottage  Bible, 
which  would  not  ordinarily  be  supposed  to  be  dan 
gerous  to  well  regulated  public  institutions.  While 
peaceably  attending  to  his  business  he  was  accused 
of  Anti-Slaveryism.  He  did  not  deny  the  charge 
and  was  arrested,  his  trunk  being  broken  open  and 
its  contents  searched  and  scattered.  He  was  taken 
before  a  vigilance  committee  and  by  it  was  con 
demned  to  receive  twenty  lashes  on  his  bare  back, 
"well  laid  on,"  and  then  to  be  driven  out  of 
town.  The  sentence  was  carried  out,  we  are  told, 
in  the  presence  of  thousands  of  people  of  both 
sexes. 

Of  the  many  somewhat  similar  instances  that 
might  here  be  referred  to  the  writer  will  make  room 
for  only  one  more. 

A  seafaring  man  of  the  name  of  Jonathan  Walker 
undertook  to  convey  in  a  sloop  of  which  he  was  the 
owner  seven  colored  fugitives  to  the  Bahama  Islands, 
where  they  would  be  free.  Owing  to  an  accident 
to  his  boat,  he  and  his  companions  were  captured. 
He  was  sentenced,  among  other  things,  to  have  his 
hand  branded  with  the  letters  S.  S.,  signifying 
"  Slave  Stealer." 

The  fncident  just  referred  to  inspired  one  of  the 


120  The  Abolitionists 

finest  productions  of  Whittier's  pen.      Singing  of 
that  "bold  plowman  of  the  wave"  he  proceeds: 

"  Why,  that  hand  is  highest  honor, 

Than  its  traces  never  yet 
Upon  old  memorial  hatchments  was 

A  prouder  blazon  set; 
And  the  unborn  generations,  as  they 

Tread  our  rocky  strand, 
Shall  tell  with  pride  the  story  of 

Their  father's  branded  hand." 


CHAPTER  XVI 

THE   UNDERGROUND   RAILROAD 

THE  prescribed  penalties  for  assisting  in  the 
escape  of  fugitive  slaves  were  severe.  By  the 
terms  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act,  as  it  was  called, 
any  one  convicted  of  that  offense,  besides  a  liability 
for  one  thousand  dollars  damages  recoverable  in  a 
civil  action,  was  subject  to  a  five-hundred-dollars 
fine  and  imprisonment  in  a  penitentiary  for  one 
year.  As  the  writer  has  not  "done  time"  for  par 
ticipation  in  certain  transactions  dating  back  to  his 
earlier  days,  in  which  the  legal  rights  of  slave-owners 
were  indifferently  respected,  he  thinks  it  advisable 
to  be  somewhat  reserved  in  his  recital  of  personal 
experiences  when  taking  the  public  into  his  con 
fidence.  The  Fugitive  Slave  Law — and  for  that 
fact  we  should  give  "most  hearty  thanks" — is  about 
as  dead  as  any  statute  can  be,  but  as  in  the  case  of 
a  snake  that  has  been  killed,  it  may  be  the  wiser 
course  not  to  trifle  with  its  fangs.  Therefore,  in 
stead  of  telling  my  own  story  in  the  first  person 
singular,  I  offer  as  a  substitute  the  confession  of 
one  John  Smith,  whose  existence  no  one  will  pre 
sume  to  dispute.  Here  is  his  statement: 

"There  was  an  did  barn  on  my  father's  farm.     It 
was  almost  a  ruin.     One  end  of  the  roof  had  fallen 


121 


122  The  Abolitionists 

in,  pretty  much  all  the  windows  were  gone,  and 
there  was  a  general  air  of  dilapidation  about  the 
place.  A  dwelling-house,  to  which  it  was  an  ap 
pendage,  had  been  burned  and  not  rebuilt,  and  the 
barn  had  been  left  to  fight  a  battle  with  the  ele 
ments  and  other  foes  in  pretty  much  its  own  way. 

"Not  that  it  was  wholly  abandoned.  There  was 
one  mow  that  was  kept  pretty  well  supplied  with 
grass,  and  there  were  two  or  three  horse  stalls  that 
were  in  tolerable  order,  although  but  rarely  used. 
There  were  a  number  of  excellent  hiding-places 
about  the  old  rookery.  In  the  basement  all  sorts 
of  rubbish,  including  unused  vehicles  and  machinery, 
had  been  stored  away,  and  so  wedged  and  packed 
was  it  that  it  would  have  taken  hours  to  uncover 
man  or  beast  seeking  concealment  there. 

"One  of  the  curious  features  of  the  situation  was 
that  the  building  was  in  sight  of  none  of  the  roads 
in  the  neighborhood,  while  less  than  a  hundred  feet 
from  it  was  a  strip  of  woods  in  which  the  removal  of 
the  larger  trees  had  stimulated  a  sturdy  and  densely 
matted  undergrowth  that  was  penetrable  only  by 
means  of  paths  that  had  been  made  by  the  cattle. 
It  was  what  was  called  a  'woods  pasture.'  With 
this  cover  for  his  movements  any  one  could  ap 
proach  or  leave  the  old  barn  with  little  danger  of 
discovery. 

"Naturally  enough,  such  a  ramshackle  was  in  ill- 
repute.  There  were  tales  about  it  in  the  neighbor 
hood.  Some  children  had  gone  there  to  play  on 
one  occasion,  and  had  been  badly  frightened  by  a 
big — as  big  as  a  half-bushel,  they  asserted — black 
face  that  was  seen  to  be  watching  them.  They  fled 


The  Underground  Railroad       123 

from  the  premises  in  great  alarm,  and  for  a  time 
there  was  talk  of  an  investigation  by  their  friends. 
The  incident,  however,  was  soon  forgotten. 

"That  old  barn  was  a  regular  station  on  one  of 
the  underground  railroads  that  extended  from  the 
Ohio  River  to  Canada.  To  but  few  persons  was  its 
true  character  known,  and  they  were  very  close- 
mouthed  about  it.  I  was  one  of  the  few  that  were 
in  the  secret.  Being  the  youngest  member  of  the 
family,  it  fell  to  my  lot  to  drive  the  horses  and  cows 
to  and  from  the  pasture  in  which  the  old  barrack 
was  located,  and  while  there  it  was  an  easy  matter 
to  visit  that  establishment  and  ascertain  if  it  shel 
tered  any  fresh  arrivals. 

"One  day  I  had  to  report  that  two  fugitives  were 
in  the  barn,  being  a  mother  and  child.  Then  came 
the  question — which  in  that  instance  was  a  difficult 
one  to  answer — as  to  who  should  convey  them  to 
the  next  station  on  the  line,  twenty  miles  away. 
A  brother,  between  five  and  six  years  older  than  I 
was,  and  who  was  something  of  a  dare-devil,  did 
the  most  of  the  work  of  transportation,  but  he 
was  in  bed  with  typhoid  fever.  A  hired  man,  who 
was  employed  partly  because  he  was  in  hearty  ac 
cord  with  the  humanitarian  views  of  the  household, 
and  who  on  several  occasions  had  taken  my  brother's 
place,  was  absent.  There  was  nobody  but  myself 
who  was  ready  to  undertake  the  job,  and  I  was  only 
eleven  years  old.  There  was  no  help  for  it,  how 
ever.  The  slaves  had  to  be  moved  on,  and  I  was 
greatly  rejoiced  in  the  prospect  of  adventure  that 
was  opened  up  to  me.  The  journey  had  to  be 
made  at  night,  but  for  that  I  cared  nothing,  as  I 


124  The  Abolitionists 

had  repeatedly  gone  over  the  route  by  daylight,  and 
thought  I  knew  the  road  perfectly. 

"Midnight  found  me  on  the  highway,  and  on  the 
driver's  seat  of  one  of  our  farm  wagons,  to  which 
was  attached  a  span  of  horses  moving  in  the  direc 
tion  of  the  north  star.  That  luminary  was  not  on 
this  occasion  visible.  The  sky  was  heavily  overcast 
and  the  night  was  very  dark.  A  light  rain  was  fall 
ing.  With  all  the  confidence  I  had  in  my  own  abil 
ity,  more  than  once  would  I  have  lost  the  way,  but 
for  the  sagacity  of  the  horses,  which  had  gone  over 
that  route  a  number  of  times  under  similar  circum 
stances.  They  acted  as  if  altogether  familiar  with 
it.  Those  horses  proved  themselves  to  be  excellent 
Abolitionists. 

"The  inclemency  of  the  night  was  in  one  respect 
a  great  advantage.  It  kept  at  home  those  who 
might  incline  to  be  too  inquisitive.  The  few 
travelers  we  met  passed  on  with  a  word  of  greeting, 
while  I  whistled  unconcernedly. 

"Over  the  bottom  of  the  wagon  was  scattered 
some  hay  that  might  be  used  either  as  feed  for  the 
horses  or  as  a  bed  for  weary  travelers.  There  was 
also  an  old-fashioned  buffalo-robe,  somewhat  dilapi 
dated,  that  could  serve  for  concealment  or  as  shelter 
from  the  elements.  Two  or  three  empty  baskets 
suggested  a  return  from  the  market.  There  was 
another  article  that  one  would  hardly  have  looked 
for.  This  was  a  smoke-cured  ham  loosely  wrap 
ped  in  some  old  sacking.  It  had  gone  over  that 
route  a  number  of  times.  Its  odor  neutralized  the 
smell  by  which  the  presence,  immediate  or  recent, 
of  negroes  might  be  detected. 


The  Underground  Railroad       125 

"My  fellow-travelers,  as  my  passengers  might  be 
called,  were  interesting  companions.  Both,  in  one 
sense,  were  children,  the  mother  certainly  not  being 
over  seventeen  years  old.  She  was  a  comely  half- 
breed  mulatto.  Her  baby — a  pretty  boy  of  two 
years — was  one  degree  nearer  white. 

"The  girl  was  inclined  to  be  confidential  and 
talkative.  She  said  she  was 'old  mas'r's'  daughter. 
Her  mother  had  been  one  of  'old  mas'r's'  people. 
She  had  grown  up  with  the  other  slave  children  on 
the  place,  being  in  no  way  favored  because  of  her 
relationship  to  her  owner.  The  baby's  father  was 
'young  mas'r* — old  master's  son,  as  it  appeared — 
and  who,  consequently,  was  a  half-brother  of  the 
youthful  mother.  Slavery  sometimes  created  sin 
gular  relationships. 

"As  the  story  ran,  all  the  people,  including  the 
narrator  and  her  baby,  when  'ole  mas'r'  died  were 
'leveled'  on  by  the  Sheriff's  man.  She  did  not 
quite  understand  the  meaning  of  it  all,  but  it  was 
doubtless  a  case  of  bankruptcy. 

'Young  mas'r,'  she  said,  'tole'  her  she  had  to 
run  away,  taking  the  baby  of  course.  'Oh,  yes,' 
she  said  very  emphatically,  '  I  never  would  have  left 
Kentuck  without  Thomas  Jefferson' — meaning  her 
little  boy.  'Young  mas'r,'  according  to  her  ac 
count,  arranged  the  whole  proceeding,  telling  her 
what  course  to  take  by  night,  where  to  stop  and 
conceal  herself  by  day,  and  what  signal  to  give 
when  she  reached  the  '  big  river. ' 

"When  the  Ohio  had  been  crossed  her  young 
master  met  her,  evidently  to  the  great  delight  of 
the  poor  creature.  He  gave  her  some  money,  and 


126  The  Abolitionists 

told  her  that  when  she  reached  her  destination  he 
would  send  her  some  *mo.'  After  putting  her  in 
charge  of  some  kind  people,  evidently  representa 
tives  of  the  underground  line,  they  had  parted, 
according  to  her  description  of  the  incident,  in  an 
affecting  way.  'He  kissed  me  and  I  cried/  was  her 
simple  statement.  Notwithstanding  the  boasted 
superiority  of  one  race  over  another,  human  nature 
seems  to  be  very  much  the  same,  whether  we  read 
it  in  a  white  face  or  in  a  black  one.  / 

"The  little  girlish  mother  was  very  much  alarmed 
for  the  safety  of  her  boy  and  herself  when  we  began 
our  journey,  wanting  to  get  out  and  conceal  herself 
whenever  we  heard  any  one  on  the  road.  After 
several  detentions  from  that  cause,  the  weary  crea 
ture  stretched  herself  upon  the  hay  beside  her  sleep 
ing  infant  and  almost  immediately  fell  into  a  heavy 
slumber.  She  could  stand  the  strain  no  longer.  I 
drew  the  buffalo-robe  ever  the  two  sleepers,  and 
there  they  rested  in  blissful  unconsciousness  until 
the  journey  was  ended. 

"Half-way  between  the  termini  of  my  route  was 
a  village  in  which  lived  a  constable  who  was  sus 
pected  of  being  in  the  employ  of  the  slave-owners. 
It  was  thought  advisable  that  I  should  avoid  that 
village  by  taking  a  roundabout  road.  That  I  did, 
although  it  added  an  extra  half  to  my  trip.  The 
result  was  that  the  sun  was  just  peeping  over  the 
eastern  hills,  as  I  reached  a  set  of  bars  showing  an 
entrance  into  a  pasture  lot  on  one  side  of  the  high 
way.  Removing  the  bars,  I  drove  into  the  field, 
and  passing  over  a  ridge  that  hid  it  from  the  road, 
I  stopped  in  front  of  a  log  cabin  that  had  every 


The  Underground  Railroad       127 

appearance  of  being  an  abandoned  and  neglected 
homestead.  That  was  the  station  I  was  looking 
for.  Arousing  my  sleeping  passengers,  I  saw  them 
enter  the  old  domicile,  where  I  bade  them  good- 
by,  and  received  the  tearful  and  repeated  thanks  of 
the  youthful  slave  mother,  speaking  for  herself  and 
her  offspring.  I  never  saw  them  again,  but  in  due 
time  the  news  came  back,  over  what  was  jocularly 
called  the  'grape-vine  telegraph,'  that  they  had 
safely  reached  their  destination. 

"At  the  home  of  the  station  agent  I  was  enthusi 
astically  received.  That  a  boy  of  eleven  should 
accomplish  what  I  had  done  was  thought  to  be  quite 
wonderful.  I  was  given  an  excellent  breakfast, 
and  then  shown  to  a  room  with  a  bed,  where  I 
had  a  good  sleep.  On  my  awakening  I  set  out 
on  the  return  journey,  this  time  taking  the  most 
direct  route,  as  I  had  then  no  fear  of  that  hireling 
constable. 

"Subsequently  I  passed  through  several  expe 
riences  of  a  similar  kind,  some  of  them  involving 
greater  risks  and  more  exciting  incidents,  but  the 
recollection  of  none  of  them  brings  me  greater  sat  is- 
faction  than  the  memory  of  my  first  conductorship 
on  the  Underground. 

"All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted  by 

"  JOHN  SMITH." 


CHAPTER   XVII 

COLONIZATION 

I  HAVE  had  a  good  deal  to  say  about  Anti- 
Slavery  societies.  There  was  another  society 
which  was  called  into  existence  by  the  slavery  situa 
tion.  Whether  it  was  pro-slavery  or  anti-slavery  was 
a  question  that  long  puzzled  a  good  many  people. 
It  was  the  Colonization  Society.  A  good  many 
Anti-Slavery  people  believed  in  it  for  a  time  and 
/!  gave  it  their  support.  "I  am  opposed  to  slavery, 
but  I  am  not  an  Abolitionist:  I  am  a  Coloniza- 
tionist,"  was  a  declaration  that,  when  I  was  a  boy, 
I  heard  many  and  many  times,  and  from  the  lips  of 
well-intending  people. 

It  did  not  take  the  sharp-sighted  leaders  of  the 
Abolition  movement  very  long  to  discover  that 
one  of  the  uses  its  managers  expected  to  make  of 
the  Colonization  Society  was  as  a  shield  for  slavery. 
It  kept  a  number  of  excellent  people  from  joining 
in  an  aggressive  movement  against  it,  took  their 
money,  and  made  them  believe  that  they  were  at 
work  for  the  freedom  of  the  negro. 

Strangely  as  it  might  appear,  the  negroes,  who 
were  assumed  to  be  the  beneficiaries  of  the  coloniza 
tion  scheme,  were  opposed  to  it.  Quicker  than  the 
white  people  generally  did,  they  saw  through  its 

128 


Colonization  129 

false  pretense,  and,  besides,  they  could  not  under 
stand  why  they  should  be  taken  from  the  land  of 
their  nativity,  and  sent  to  the  country  from  which 
their  progenitors  had  come,. any  more  than  the  de 
scendants  of  Scotch,  English,  and  German  immi 
grants  should  be  deported  to  the  lands  of  their 
ancestors. 

Equally   strange  was    it    that    the    Colonization 
Society,  if  really  friendly  to  the  negro,  should  find 
its  most  zealous  supporters  among  slaveholders.   Its 
first  president,  who  was  a  nephew  of  George  Wash 
ington,  upon  learning  that  his  slaves  had  got  the 
idea  that  they  were  to  be  set  at  liberty,  sent  over 
fifty  of  them  to  be  sold  from  the  auction  block  at 
New  Orleans.     That  was  intended  as  a  warning  to 
the  rest.     One  of  its  presidents  was  said  to  be  the 
owner  of  a  thousand  slaves  and  had  never  manu 
mitted  one  of  them.     The  principal  service  that  thej 
colonization  movement  was  expected  to  do  for  the 
slave-owners  was  to  relieve  them  of  the  presence  of  '• 
free   negroes.     These   were  always  regarded   as  ai 
menace  by  slave-masters.     They  disseminated  ideas! 
of  freedom  and  manhood  among  their  unfortunate!/ 
brethren.      They  were  object-lessons  to  those   in 
bondage.     The  slave-owners  were  only  too  glad  to 
have  them  sent  away.     They  looked  to  Liberia  as 
a  safety-valve.     It  did  not  take  long  for  intelligent 
people  who  were  really  well-wishers  of  the  black 
man  to  perceive -these  facts. 

The  severest  blow  that  the  Colonization  Society 
received  in  America  was  from  the  pen  of  William 
Lloyd  Garrison,  who,  under  the  title  of  Thoughts  on 
African  Colonization,  published  a  pamphlet  that  had 


130  The  Abolitionists 

wide  distribution.  It  completely  unmasked  the 
pretended  friendship  of  the  Colonizationists  for  the 
negroes,  free  or  slave.  From  that  time  they  lost 
all  support  from  real  Anti-Slavery  people.  There 
was,  however,  to  be  a  battle  fought,  in  which  the 
Colonization  Society  figured  as  a  party,  that  fur 
nished  one  of  the  most  interesting  episodes  of  the 
slavery  conflict. 

England,  at  the  time  of  which  we  are  speaking, 
was  full  of  Anti-Slavery  sentiment.  Slavery,  at  the 
end  of  a  long  and  bitter  contest,  had  been  abolished 
in  all  her  colonies.  Her  philanthropists  were  rejoic 
ing  in  their  victory.  The  managers  of  the  Coloniza 
tion  Society  resolved,  if  possible,  to  capture  that 
sentiment,  and  with  it  the  pecuniary  aid  the  British 
Abolitionists  might  render.  It  was  always  a  tre 
mendous  beggar.  They,  accordingly,  selected  a 
flucnt-tongued  agent  and  sent  him  to  England  to 
advocate  their  cause.  He  did  not  hesitate  to  repre 
sent  that  the  Colonization  Society  was  the  especial 
friend  of  the  negro,  working  for  his  deliverance  from 
bondage,  and,  in  addition,  that  it  had  the  support 
of  "the  wealth,  the  respectability,  and  the  piety  of 
the  American  people." 

When  these  facts  came  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
members  of  the  newly  formed  New  England  Anti- 
Slavery  Society,  they  were  naturally  excited,  and 
resolved  to  meet  the  enemy  in  this  new  field  of 
operations.  This  they  decided  to  do  by  sending  a 
representative  to  England,  who  would  be  able  to 
meet  the  colonization  agent  in  discussion,  and 
otherwise  proclaim  and  champion  their  particular 
views.  For  this  service  the  man  selected  was  Wil- 


Colonization  131 

liam  Lloyd  Garrison,  who  was  then  but  twenty-eight 
years  old. 

Remarkable  it  was  that  one  who  was  not  only  so 
young,  but  imperfectly  educated,  being  a  poor 
mechanic,  daily  toiling  as  a  compositor  at  his 
printer's  case,  should  be  chosen  to  meet  the  most 
polished  people  in  the  British  Empire,  and  hold 
himself  ready  to  debate  the  most  serious  question 
of  the  time.  That  such  a  person  should  be  willing 
to  enter  upon  such  an  undertaking  was  almost  as 
remarkable.  But  Garrison  showed  no  hesitation  in 
accepting  the  task  for  which  he  was  selected. 

On  his  arrival  in  England,  Garrison  sent  a  chal 
lenge  to  the  colonization  agent  for  a  public  debate. 
This  the  Colonizationist  refused  to  receive.  Two 
more  challenges  were  sent  and  were  treated  in  the 
same  way.  Then  Garrison,  at  a  cost  of  thirty  dol 
lars,  which  he  could  ill  afford  to  pay,  published  the 
challenge  in  the  London  Times,  with  a  statement  of 
the  manner  in  which  it  had  been  so  far  treated.  Of 
course,  public  interest  was  aroused,  and  when  Gar 
rison  appeared  upon  the  public  platform,  as  he  at  once 
proceeded  to  do,  he  was  greeted  with  the  attend 
ance  of  multitudes  of  interested  hearers.  Exeter 
Hall  in  London  was  crowded.  The  most  distin 
guished  men  in  England  sat  upon  the  stage  when 
he  spoke,  and  applauded  his  addresses.  Daniel 
O'Connell,  the  great  Irish  orator,  paid  them  a  most 
florid  compliment.  They  were,  unquestionably, 
most  remarkable  samples  of  effective  eloquence — 
plain  in  statement,  simple  in  style,  but  exceedingly 
logical  and  forcible.  They  were  widely  published 
throughout  England  at  the  time  of  their  delivery. 


13*  The  Abolitionists 

One  of  the  results  was  that  the  leading  emanci 
pationists  of  Great  Britain  signed  and  published  a 
warning  against  the  colonization  scheme,  denouncing 
it  as  having  its  roots  in  44a  cruel  prejudice,"  and 
declaring  that  it  was  calculated  to  "increase  the 
spirit  of  caste  so  unhappily  predominant,"  and  that 
it  "  exposed  the  colored  people  to  great  practical 
persecution  in  order  to  force  them  to  emigrate." 

As  for  the  poor  agent  of  the  Colonizationists,  see 
ing  how  the  battle  was  tending,  he  left  England  in 
a  hurry,  and  was  nevermore  heard  of  in  that  part  of 
the  world. 

Garrison's  personal  triumph  was  very  striking, 
and  it  was  splendidly  earned.  He  was  made  the 
recipient  of  many  compliments  and  testimonials. 
A  curious  incident  resulted  from  this  great  popu 
larity.  He  was  invited  to  breakfast  by  Sir  Thomas 
Buxton,  the  noted  English  philanthropist,  with  a 
view  to  making  the  acquaintance  of  a  number  of 
distinguished  persons  who  were  to  be  present. 
When  Mr.  Garrison  presented  himself,  his  enter 
tainer,  who  had  not  before  met  or  seen  him,  looked 
at  him  in  great  astonishment. 

4 'Are  you  William  Lloyd  Garrison?"  he  inquired. 

44 That  is  who  I  am,"  replied  Mr.  Garrison,  44and 
I  am  here  on  your  invitation." 

44 But  you  are  a  white  man,"  said  Buxton,  44and 
from  your  zeal  and  labors  in  behalf  of  the  colored 
people,  I  assumed  that  you  were  one  of  them." 

Garrison  left  England  in  what,  metaphorically, 
might  be  described  as  "a  blaze  of  glory."  Hun 
dreds  attended  him  when  he  went  to  embark  on  his 
homeward  voyage,  and  he  was  followed  by  their 


Colonization  133 

cheers  and  benedictions.  Wonderfully  different 
was  the  treatment  he  received  on  his  arrival  in  his 
own  country.  Not  long  afterwards  he  was  dragged 
through  Boston  streets  by  a  hempen  rope  about  his 
body,  and  was  assigned  to  a  prison  cell,  as  affording 
the  most  available  protection  from  the  mob. 

Nevertheless,  we  have  had  some  excellent  people 
— not  slave-owners — who,  out  of  compassion  for  the 
black  man,  or  from  prejudice  against  his  color,  and, 
perhaps,  from  a  little  of  both,  have  favored  a  policy 
of  colonization  in  this  country.  Mr.  Lincoln  was 
one  of  them.  "If  all  earthly  power  were  given  me, 
I  should  not  know  what  to  do  with  the  existing  in 
stitution.  My  first  impulse  would  be  to  free  the 
slaves  and  send  them  to  Liberia."  So  said  Mr. 
Lincoln  in  one  of  his  debates  with  Douglas. 

"I  cannot  make  it  better  known  than  it  already 
is,"  said  Mr.  Lincoln  in  a  message  to  Congress, 
dated   December   I,    1862,  "that  I   strongly  favor^ 
colonization." 

At  Lincoln's  instance  Congress  appropriated 
several  large  sums  of  money — then  much  needed  in 
warlike  operations  —  for  colonizing  experiments. 
One  of  these  has  a  curious  and  somewhat  pathetic 
history.  A  sharper  by  the  name  of  Koch,  having 
worked  himself  into  the  confidence  of  the  President 
and  some  other  good  people,  got  them  to  buy  from 
him  an  island  in  the  West  Indies,  called  He  a'Vache, 
which  he  represented  to  be  a  veritable  earthly  par 
adise.  Strangely  enough,  it  was  wholly  uninhabited, 
and  therefore  ready  for  the  uses  of  a  colony.  Several 
hundred  people — colored,  of  course — were  collected, 
put  aboard  a  ship,  and  dumped  upon  this  unknown 


134  The  Abolitionists 

land.  It  will  surprise  no  one  to  learn  that  pretty 
soon  these  people,  poisoned  by  malaria, stung  by  ven 
omous  insects  and  reptiles,  and  having  scarcely  any 
thing  to  eat,  were  dying  like  cattle  with  the  murrain. 
In  the  end  a  ship  was  sent  to  bring  back  the  survivors. 

Nevertheless,  the  kind-hearted  President  did  not 
give  up  the  idea.  At  his  request  a  delegation  of 
Washington  negroes  called  upon  him.  He  made 
them  quite  a  long  speech,  telling  them  that  Con 
gress  had  given  him  money  with  which  to  found  a 
colony  of  colored  people,  and  that  he  had  found 
what  seemed  to  be  a  suitable  location  in  Central 
America.  He  appealed  to  them  to  supply  the 
colonists.  The  negroes,  not  anxious  for  exile, 
diplomatically  said  they  would  think  the  matter 
over.  In  the  end  it  was  discovered  that  Central 
America  did  not  want  the  negroes,  and  that  the 
negroes  did  not  want  Central  America. 

A  story  that  is  curiously  illustrative  of  Mr.  Lin 
coln's  attachment  to  the  policy  of  removing  the 
colored  people  is  told  by  L.  E.  Chittenden  in  his 
Recollections  of  President  Lincoln.  Mr.  Chittenden 
was  a  citizen  of  Vermont  and  Register  of  the  Treas 
ury  under  Lincoln,  with  whom  he  was  in  intimate 
and  confidential  relations: 

"  During  one  of  his  welcome  visits  to  my  office,"  says 
Mr.  Chittenden,  "  the  President  seemed  to  be  buried  in 
thought  over  some  subject  of  great  interest.  After  long 
reflection  he  abruptly  exclaimed  that  he  wanted  to  ask 
me  a  question. 

"'Do  you  know  any  energetic  contractor?1  he  in 
quired;  '  one  who  would  be  willing  to  take  a  large  con 
tract  attended  with  some  risk  ? ' 


Colonization  135 

11  'I  know  New  England  contractors,'  I  replied, '  who 
would  not  be  frightened  by  the  magnitude  or  risk  of 
any  contract.  The  element  of  prospective  profit  is  the 
only  one  that  would  interest  them.  If  there  was  a  fair 
prospect  of  profit,  they  would  not  hesitate  to  contract  to  . 
suppress  the  Rebellion  in  ninety  days.' 

"  '  There  will  be  profit  and  reputation  in  the  contract 
I  may  propose,'  said  the  President.  'It  is  to  remove 
the  whole  colored  race  of  the  slave  States  into  Texas. 
If  you  have  any  acquaintance  who  would  take  that  con 
tract,  I  would  like  to  see  him.' 

"  '  I  know  a  man  who  would  take  that  contract  and 
perform  it,'  I  replied.  *  I  would  be  willing  to  put  you 
into  communication  with  him,  so  that  you  might  form 
your  own  opinion  about  him.' 

"By  the  President's  direction  I  requested  John  Brad 
ley,  a  well-known  Vermonter,  to  come  to  Washington.  He 
was  at  my  office  the  morning  after  I  sent  the  telegram 
to  him.  I  declined  to  give  him  any  hint  of  the  purpose 
of  my  invitation,  but  took  him  directly  to  the  President. 
When  I  presented  him  I  said:  '  Here,  Mr.  President, 
is  the  contractor  whom  I  named  to  you  yesterday.' 

"  I  left  them  together.  Two  hours  later  Mr.  Bradley 
returned  to  my  office  overflowing  with  admiration  for 
the  President  and  enthusiasm  for  his  proposed  work. 
'The  proposition  is,'  he  said,  'to  remove  the  whole 
colored  race  into  Texas,  there  to  establish  a  republic  of 
their  own.  The  subject  has  political  bearings  of  which 
I  am  no  judge,  and  upon  which  the  President  has  not 
yet  made  up  his  mind.  But  I  have  shown  him  that  it  is 
practicable.  I  will  undertake  to  remove  them  all  within 
a  year."* 

It  is  unnecessary  to  state  that  the  Black  Republic 
of  Texas  was  a  dream  that  never  materialized. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

LINCOLN  AND  EMANCIPATION 

MESSRS.  Nicolay  and  Hay,  who  were  Mr. 
Lincoln's  private  secretaries  during  the 
time  he  was  President,  and  afterwards  the  authors 
of  his  most  elaborate  biography,  say:  "The  bless 
ings  of  an  enfranchised  race  must  forever  hail  him 
as  their  liberator." 

Says  Francis  Curtis  in  his  History  of  the  Republi 
can  Party,  in  speaking  of  the  President's  Emancipa 
tion  Proclamation:  "On  the  1st  day  of  January, 
1863,  the  final  proclamation  of  freedom  was  issued, 
and  every  negro  slave  within  the  confines  of  the 
United  States  was  at  last  made  free." 

Other  writers  of  what  is  claimed  to  be  history, 
almost  without  number,  speak  of  the  President's 
pronouncement  as  if  it  caused  the  bulwarks  of 
slavery  to  fall  down  very  much  as  the  walls  of 
Jericho  are  said  to  have  done,  at  one  blast,  over 
whelming  the  whole  institution  and  setting  every 
bondman  free.  Indeed,  there  are  multitudes  of 
fairly  intelligent  people  who  believe  that  slavehold- 
ing  in  this  country  ceased  the  very  day  and  hour 
the  proclamation  appeared.  In  a  recent  magazine 
article,  so  intelligent  a  man  as  Booker  Washington 
speaks  of  a  Kentucky  slave  family  as  being  emanci- 

136 


Lincoln  and  Emancipation        137 

pated  by  Mr.  Lincoln's  proclamation,  when,  in  fact, 
the  proclamation  never  applied  to  Kentucky  at  all. 
The  emancipationists  of  Missouri  were  working 
hard  to  free  their  State  from  slavery,  and  they 
would  have  been  only  too  glad  to  have  Mr.  Lincoln 
do  the  work  for  them.  They  appealed  to  him  to 
extend  his  edict  to  their  State,  but  got  no  satisfac 
tion.  The  emancipationists  of  Maryland  had  much 
the  same  experience.  Both  Missouri  and  Mary 
land  were  left  out  of  the  proclamation,  as  were 
Tennessee  and  Kentucky  and  Delaware,  and  parts 
of  Virginia  and  Louisiana  and  the  Carolinas.  (See 
Appendix.)  The  explanation  is  that  the  proclama 
tion  was  not  intended  to  cover  all  slaveholding  ter 
ritory.  All  of  it  that  belonged  to  States  that  had 
not  been  in  rebellion,  or  had  been  subdued,  was 
excluded.  The  President's  idea  was  to  reach  only/ 
such  sections  as  were  then  in  revolt.  If  the  procla 
mation  had  been  immediately  operative,  and  had 
liberated  every  bondman  in  the  jurisdiction  to  which 
it  applied,  it  would  have  left  over  a  million  slaves 
in  actual  thraldom.  Indeed,  Earl  Russell,  the 
British  premier,  was  quite  correct  when,  in  speaking 
of  the  proclamation,  he  said:  "It  does  not  more 
than  profess  to  emancipate  slaves  where  the  United 
States  authorities  cannot  make  emancipation  a 
reality,  and  emancipates  no  one  where  the  decree 
can  be  carried  into  effect." 

For  the  failure  of  the  proclamation  to  cover  all 
slaveholding  territory  there  was  a  plausible  reason. 
Freedom  under  it  was  not  decreed  as  a  boon,  but  as 
a  penalty.  It  was  not,  in  theory  at  least,  intended 
to  help  the  slave,  but  to  chastise  the  master.  It 


138  The  Abolitionists 

was  to  be  in  punishment  of  treason,  and,  of  course, 
could  not  consistently  be  made  to  apply  to  loyal 
communities,  or  to  such  as  were  under  government 
control.  The  proclamation,  it  will  be  recollected, 
was  issued  in  two  parts  separated  by  one  hundred 
days.  The  first  part  gave  the  Rebels  warning  that 
the  second  would  follow  if,  in  the  meanwhile,  they 
did  not  give  up  their  rebellion.  All  they  had  to  do 
to  save  slavery  was  to  cease  from  their  treasonable 
practices.  Had  the  Rebels  been  shrewd  enough, 
within  the  hundred  days,  to  take  the  President  at 
his  word,  he  would  have  stood  pledged  to  maintain 
their  institution,  and  his  proclamation,  instead  of 
being  a  charter  of  freedom,  would  have  been  a 
license  for  slaveholding. 

The  proclamation  did  not,  in  fact,  whatever  it 
may  have  otherwise  accomplished  at  the  time  it  was 
issued,  liberate  a  single  slave.  What  is  more, 
slavery  as  an  institution  was  altogether  too  securely 
rooted  in  our  system  to  be  abolished  by  proclama 
tion.  The  talk  of  such  a  thing  greatly  belittles  the 
magnitude  of  the  task  that  was  performed.  Its 
removal  required  a  long  preliminary  work,  involv 
ing,  as  is  made  to  appear  in  previous  chapters  of 
this  work,  almost  incalculable  toil  and  sacrifice,  to 
be  followed  by  an  enormous  expenditure  of  blood 
and  treasure.  Its  practical  extinguishment  was  the 
work  of  the  army,  while  its  legal  extirpation  was 
accomplished  by  Congress  and  the  Legislatures  of 
the  States  in  adopting  the  Thirteenth  Amendment 
to  the  Federal  Constitution,  which  forbids  all  slave- 
holding.  That  amendment  was  a  production  of 
Congress  and  not  of  the  Executive,  whose  official 


Lincoln  and  Emancipation        139 

approval  was  not  even  required  to  make  it  legally 
effective. 

The  story  of  the  proclamation,  with  not  a  few 
variations,  has  often  been  told;  but  the  writer 
fancies  that  the  altogether  correct  account  has  not 
always  been  given.  It  may  be  presumptuous  on 
his  part,  but  he  will  submit  his  version. 

To  understand  the  motive  underlying  the  procla 
mation  we  must  take  into  account  its  author's 
feeling  toward  slavery.  Notwithstanding  various 
unfriendly  references  of  an  academic  sort  to  that 
institution,  he  was  not  at  the  time  the  proclamation 
appeared,  and  never  had  been,  an  Abolitionist. 

Not  very  long  before  the  time  referred  to  the 
writer  heard  Mr.  Lincoln,  in  his  debate  with  Ste 
phen  A.  Douglas  at  Alton,  Illinois,  declare — lay 
ing  unusual  emphasis  on  his  words:  "I  have  on 
all  occasions  declared  as  strongly  as  Judge  Douglas 
against  the  disposition  to  interfere  with  the  existing 
institution  of  slavery." 

Judge  Douglas  was  what  was  then  called  a 
" dough-face"  by  the  Abolitionists — being  a  North 
ern  man  with  Southern  principles,  or  "proclivities," 
as  he  called  them. 

Only  a  little  earlier,  and  several  years  after  Mr. 
Lincoln  had  claimed  to  be  a  Republican,  and  a 
leader  of  the  Republicans,  he  had,  in  a  speech  at 
Bloomington,  Illinois,  asserted  that,  "the  conclu 
sion  of  it  all  is  that  we  must  restore  the  Missouri 
Compromise." 

Now  the  adoption  of  the  Missouri  Compromise 
was  the  hardest  blow  ever  inflicted  on  the  cause  of 
free  soil  in  America.  It  did  more  to  encourage  the 


140  The  Abolitionists 

supporters  of  slavery  and  to  discourage  its  oppo 
nents  than  anything  else  that  ever  happened.  Its 
restoration  would  undoubtedly  have  produced  a 
similar  effect.  Although  he  is  not  to  be  credited 
with  any  philanthropic  motive,  Stephen  A.  Douglas 
did  an  effective  work  for  freedom  when  he  helped 
to  overthrow  that  measure.  Leading  Abolitionists 
have  accorded  him  that  meed  of  praise. 

But  there  was  that  proposition  which  Mr.  Lincoln 
was  so  fond  of  repeating,  that  the  nation  could  not 
remain  half  free  and  half  slave — "a  divided  house" 
— but  the  remedy  he  had  to  propose  was  not  manu 
mission  at  any  proximate  or  certain  time,  but  the 
adoption  of  a  policy  that,  to  use  his  own  words, 
would  cause  "the  public  mind  to  rest  in  the  belief 
that  it  [slavery]  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinc 
tion.  ' '  Practically  that  meant  very  little  or  nothing. 
What  the  public  mind  then  needed  was  not  "rest," 
but  properly  directed  activity. 

But  the  declarations  above  quoted  were  all  before 
Mr.  Lincoln  had  become  President  or  had  probably 
thought  of  such  a  thing.  Did  the  change  of  posi 
tion  lead  to  a  change  of  opinion  on  his  part?  We 
are  not  left  in  uncertainty  on  this  point.  His 
official  views  were  declared  in  what  might  be  called 
a  State  paper.  Soon  after  his  inauguration,  his 
Secretary  of  State  sent  Minister  Dayton,  at  Paris,  a 
dispatch  that  he  might  use  with  foreign  officials,  in 
which,  in  speaking  of  the  Rebellion,  he  said:  "The 
condition  of  slavery  in  the  several  States  will  remain 
just  the  same  whether  it  succeeds  or  fails.  .  .  . 
It  is  hardly  necessary  to  add  to  this  incontrovertible 
statement  the  further  fact  that  the  new  President 


Lincoln  and  Emancipation        141 

has  always  repudiated  all  designs,  whenever  and 
wherever  imputed  to  him,  of  disturbing  the  system 
of  slavery  as  it  has  existed  under  the  Constitution 
and  laws." 

About  the  same  time  Mr.  Lincoln  stated  to  a 
party  of  Southern  Congressmen,  who  called  upon 
him,  that  he  "recognized  the  rights  of  property 
that  had  grown  out  of  it  [slavery]  and  would  respectv 
those  rights  as  fully  as  he  would  similar  rights  in 
any  other  property." 

No  steps  were  taken  by  Mr.  Lincoln  to  recall  or 
repudiate  the  foregoing  announcements.  On  the 
contrary,  he  confirmed  them  in  his  official  action. 
He  annulled  the  freedom  proclamations  of  Fremont 
and  Hunter.  He  did  'not  interfere  when  some  of 
his  military  officers  were  so  busy  returning  fugitive 
slaves  that  they  had  no  time  to  fight  the  masters. 
He  approved  Hallock's  order  Number  Three  exclud 
ing  fugitives  from  the  lines.  He  even  permitted 
the  poor  old  Hutchinsons  to  be  sent  away  from  the 
army  very  much  as  if  they  had  been  colored  people, 
when  trying  to  rouse  "the  boys"  with  their  freedom 
songs.  In  many  ways  Mr.  Lincoln  showed  that 
in  the  beginning  and  throughout  the  earlier  part  of 
his  Administration  he  hoped  to  re-establish  the 
Union  without  disturbing  slavery.  In  effect  he  so 
declared  in  his  introduction  to  his  freedom  procla 
mation.  He  gave  the  rebel  slaveholders  one  hun 
dred  days  in  which  to  abandon  their  rebellion  and 
save  their  institution.  In  view  of  such  things  it  is 
no  wonder  that  Henry  Wilson,  so  long  a  leading 
Republican  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  in  his  Rise 
and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  in  speaking  of  emanci- 


The  Abolitionists 


pation,  said  "it  was  a  policy,  indeed,  which  he  [the 
President]  did  not  personally  favor  except  in  con 
nection  with  his  favorite  idea  of  colonization." 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  the  President's  attitude 
was  a  great  surprise  and  a  sore  disappointment  to 
the  more  radical  Anti-Slavery  people  of  the  country, 
who  had  supported  him  with  much  enthusiasm  and 
high  hopes.  They  felt  that  they  had  been  deceived. 
They  said  so  very  plainly,  for  the  Abolitionists 
were  not  the  sort  of  people  to  keep  quiet  under 
provocation.  Horace  Greeley  published  his  signed 
attack  (see  Appendix)  entitled,  The  Prayer  of 
Tivcnty  Millions,  which  is,  without  doubt,  the  most 
scathing  denunciation  in  the  English  language. 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  "pounded"  Mr.  Lincoln,  as 
he  expressed  it.  Wendell  Phillips  fairly  thundered 
his  denunciations.  There  was  a  general  under-swell 
of  indignation. 

Now,  Mr.  Lincoln  was  not  a  man  who  was  in 
capable  of  reading  the  signs  of  the  times.  He  saw 
that  he  was  drifting  towards  an  irreparable  breach 
with  an  element  that  had  previously  furnished  his 
staunchest  supporters.  As  a  politician  of  great 
native  shrewdness,  as  well  as  the  head  of  the  Gov 
ernment,  he  could  not  afford  to  let  the  quarrel  go 
on  and  widen.  There  was  need  of  conciliation. 
Something  had  to  be  done.  We  know  what  he  did. 
He  issued  his  Emancipation  Proclamation^, 

As  far  as  freeing  any  slaves  was  concerned,  he 
knew  it  amounted  to  very  little,  if  anything.  He 
said  so.  Less  than  two  weeks  before  the  preliminary 
section  of  the  proclamation  appeared,  Mr.  Lincoln 
was  waited  on  by  a  delegation  of  over  One  hundred 


Lincoln  and  Emancipation        143 

Chicago  clergymen,  who  urged  him  to  issue  a  pro 
clamation  of  freedom  for  the  slaves.  '  What  good 
would  a  proclamation  from  me  do,  especially  as  we 
are  now  situated?"  asked  Mr.  Lincoln  by  way  of 
reply.  "I  do  not  want  to  issue  a  document  that 
the  whole  world  would  see  must  necessarily  be  in 
operative,  like  the  Pope's  bull  against  the  comet. 
Would  my  word  free  the  slaves,  when  I  cannot  even 
enforce  the  Constitution  in  the  rebel  States?" 

In  contemplating  a  proclamation  applicable  to  the 
rebel  States,  it  is  hardly  to  be  supposed  that  Mr. 
Lincoln  did  not  understand  the  situation  two  weeks 
earlier  quite  as  well  as  when  the  document  appeared. 
If  Mr.  Lincoln  had  been  told,  when  he  entered  on 
the  Presidency,  that  before  his  term  of  office  would 
expire  he  would  be  hailed  as  "The  Great  Emanci 
pator,"  he  would  have  treated  the  statement  as 
equal  to  one  of  his  own  best  jokes.  Slavery  was  a 
thing  he  did  not  then  want  to  have  disturbed.  He 
discounteTiarrce^ alt  radical  agitators  of  the  subject, 
and  especially  in  the  border  slave  States,  where  he 
was  able  to  hold  them  pretty  well  in  check,  except 
in  Missouri.  There  they  stood  up  and  fought  him, 
and  in  the  end  beat  him.  One  of  the  rather  curious 
results  of  this  condition  of  things  was  that,  when 
the  States  came  to  action  on  the  Thirteenth  Consti 
tutional  Amendment,  the  one  absolutely  abolishing 
slavery,  the  throe  border  slave  States  of  Kentucky, 
Maryland,  and  Delaware,  over  which  the  President's 
influence  was  practically  supreme,  gave  an  ad 
verse  vote  of  four  to  one,  while  Missouri,  with 
whose  radical  emancipationists  he  had  continuously 
been  at  loggerheads,  ratified  the  amendment  by  a 


144  The  Abolitionists 

legislative  vote  of  one  hundred  and  eleven  ayes  to 
forty  nays. 

Nevertheless,  notwithstanding  the  President,  at 
the  beginning  of  his  official  term,  opposed  Anti- 
Slavery  agitation  and  Anti-Slavery  action  with  all 
his  might,  he  promptly  faced  about  as  soon  as  he 
discovered  that  the  subject  was  one  that  would  not 
"down."     No  one  ever  worked  harder  to  find   a 
solution  of  a  difficult  problem  than  he  did  of  the 
slavery  question.     He  began  to  formulate  plans  to 
that  end,  the  most  distinguishing  feature,  however, 
being  the  spirit  of  compromise  by  which  they  were 
pervaded.     All   of   them   stopped    before   an    ulti 
matum   was   reached.      Besides   his   proclamation, 
which,  as  we  have  seen,  applied  to  only  a  part  of 
the  slaves,  he  devised  a  measure  that  would  have 
been  applicable  to  all  of  them.     In  his  special  mes 
sage  of  December,  1863,  he  proposed  to  Congress 
the  submission  of  a  constitutional  amendment  that 
would  work  universal  liberation.     There  were  con 
ditions,  however.     One  was  that  the  slaves  should 
be  paid  for  by  the  Government ;  another  that  the 
masters  might  retain  their  uncompensated  services 
until  January  i,  1900;  that  is,  for  a  period  of  thirty- 
seven  years,  unless  they  were  sooner  emancipated 
by  the  grave,  as  the  most  of  them  would  be.     (See 
Appendix.) 

The  President's  somewhat  fantastic  proposition 
was  not  claimed  by  him  to  be  for  the  bondman's 
benefit.  He  urged  it  as  a  measure  of  public  econ 
omy,  holding  that,  as  slavery  was  the  admitted 
cause  of  the  Rebellion,  the  quickest  and  surest  way 
to  remove  that  cause  would  be  by  purchase  of  all 


Lincoln  and  Emancipation        145 

the  slaves,  which,  he  insisted,  "would  shorten  the 
war,  and  thus  lessen  the  expenditure  of  money  and 
blood." 

The  public  did  not  take  to  the  President's  plan  at 
all,  especially  the  Abolitionists  did  not.  They  no 
more  favored  the  buying  of  men  by  the  Govern 
ment  than  by  anybody  else.  They  held  that  if  the 
master  had  no  right  to  the  person  of  his  bondman, 
he  had  no  right  to  payment  for  him.  And  as  for 
an  arrangement  that  might  prolong  slaveholding  for 
thirty-seven  years,  they  saw  in  it  not  only  a  measure 
of  injustice  to  the  men,  women,  and  children  then 
in  servitude,  the  most  of  whom  would  be  doomed 
to  bondage  for  the  rest  of  their  natural  lives,  but  a 
possible  plan  for  side-tracking  a  genuine  freedom 
movement. 

In  the  proposition  just  considered  we  have  not 
only  the  core  of  the  President's  policy  during  much 
of  his  official  tenure,  but  an  explanation  of  his 
mental  operations.  He  was  sentimentally  opposed 
to  slavery,  but  he  was  afraid  of  freedom.  He 
dreaded  its  effect  on  both  races.  He  was  opposed 
to  slavery  more  because  it  was  a  public  nuisance 
than  because  of  its  injustice  to  the  oppressed  black 
man,  whose  condition,  he  did  not  believe,  would  be 
greatly,  if  at  all,  benefited  by  freedom.  Hence  he 
wanted  manumission  put  off  as  long  as  possible.  It 
was  "ultimate  extinction"  he  wanted,  to  be  attended 
with  payment  to  the  master  for  his  lost  property. 
Another  thing  he  favored — and  which  he  seems  to 
have  thought  entirely  practicable — as  a  condition  to 
liberation,  was  the  black  man's  removal  to  a  place 
or  places  out  of  contact  with  our  white  population. 


146  The  Abolitionists 

But  in  entire  fairness  to  Mr.  Lincoln,  it  should 
be  said  that,  although  his  proclamation  was  inoper 
ative  for  the  immediate  release  of  any  slaves,  it  was 
by  no  means  wholly  ineffectual.     Its  moral  influence 
was  considerable.     It  helped  to  hasten  a  movement 
that  had,  however,  by  that  time  become  practically 
irresistible.       Its    political    results    were    far   more 
marked  and  important.     If  it  did  not  fully  restore 
cordiality  between  the  President  and  the  Abolition 
leaders,  it  prevented  an  open  rupture.     It  served 
as  a  bridge  between  them.     Although  they  never 
took  Mr.  Lincoin  fully  into  their  confidence  again, 
the  Abolitionists  interpreted  his  proclamation  as  a 
concession  and  an  abandonment    of    his    previous 
policy,  which  it  was  much  more  in  appearance  than 
actually.     At  all  events,    it  was  splendid  politics. 
The  somewhat  theatrical  manner  in  which  it  was 
worked  up  and  promulgated   in   installments,  thus 
arousing    in    advance    a   widespread    interest    and 
curiosity,   showed   no   little   strategic  ability.     No 
more  skillful  move  is  recorded  in  the  history  of  our 
parties  and  partisans  than  this  act  of  Mr.  Lincoln, 
by  which  he  disarmed  his  Anti-Slavery  critics  with 
out  giving  them  any  material  advantage  or  chang 
ing  the  actual  situation.     I  am  not  now  speaking 
of  the  motive  underlying  the  proclamation  of  the 
President,  but  of  its  effect.     Without  it  he  could 
not  have  been  renominated  and  re-elected. 

Another  observation,  in  order  to  be  entirely  just 
to  Mr.  Lincoln,  after  what  has  been  stated,  would 
at  this  point  seem  to  be  called  for.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  from  the  first  he  was  at  heart  an  Anti- 
Slavery  man,  which  is  saying  a  good  deal  for  one 


Lincoln  and  Emancipation        H7 

born  in  Kentucky,  raised  in  southern  Indiana  and 
southern  Illinois,  and  who  was  naturally  of  a  con 
servative  turn  of  mind.  Nevertheless,  he  was  never 
an  Abolitionist.  He  was  opposed  to  immediate — 
what  he  called  "sudden" — emancipation.  He  ., 
recognized  the  "right" —his  own  word  —  of  the 
slave-owner  to  his  pound  of  flesh,  either  in  the  per- 
sqrToFTiis  bondman  or  a  cash  equivalent.  He  was 
strongly  prejudiced  against  the  negro.  Of  that 
fact  we  have  the  evidence  in  his  colonization  ideas. 
He  favored  the  banishment  of  our  American-born 
black  people  from  their  native  land.  It.  was  a  cruel 
proposition.  True,  the  President  did  move  from 
his  first  position,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  far 
from  that  occupied  by  the  Abolitionists,  but  from 
first  to  last  he  was  more  of  a  follower  than  leader 
in  the  procession. 

And  here  the  author  wishes  to  add,  in  justice  to 
himself,  that  if,  by  reason  of  anything  he  has  said 
in  this  chapter,  or  elsewhere  in  this  work,  in  criti 
cism  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  dealings  with  the  slavery  issue, 
he  should  be  accused  of  unfriendliness  toward  the 
great  martyr  President,  he  enters  a  full  and  strong 
denial.  He  holds  that,  in  view  of  all  the  difficul 
ties  besetting  him,  Mr.  Lincoln  did  well,  although 
he  might  have  done  better.  Much  allowance,  must 
be  made  to  one  situated  as  he  was.  He  un 
doubtedly  deserves  the  most  of  the  encomiums 
that  have  been  lavished  upon  him.  At  the  same 
time,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable  that  his  fame  as 
a  statesman  will  ultimately  depend  less  upon  his 
treatment  of  the  slavery  issue  than  upon  any  other 
part  of  his  public  administration.  The  fact  will 


1 48  The  Abolitionists 

always  appear  that  it  was  the  policy  of  Salmon  P. 
Chase,  Charles  Sumner,  Thaddeus  Stevens,  Horace 
Greeley,  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  and  other  advocates 
of  the  radical  cure,  with  whom  the  President  was  in 
constant  opposition,  that  prevailed  in  the  end,  arid 
with  a  decisiveness  that  proves  it  to  have  been  feas 
ible  and  sound  from  the  beginning.  Mr.  Lincoln's 
most  ultra  prescription — his  Emancipation  Procla 
mation — was  ineffective.  If  it  was  intended  to 
eradicate  slavery  altogether,  it  was  too  narrow ;  if  to 
free  the  slaves  of  Rebels  only,  it  was  too  broad.  So 
with  his  other  propositions.  His  thirty-seven-year- 
liberation  scheme,  his  "tinkering  off  "  policy  (as  he 
called  it)  for  Missouri,  his  reconstruction  proposals, 
and  his  colonization  projects,  all  failed.  Indeed,  if 
we  take  his  official  action  from  first  to  last,  it  is  a 
question  whether  the  President,  owing  to  his  ex 
treme  conservatism,  was  not  more  of  an  obstruc 
tionist  than  a  promoter  of  the  Anti-Slavery  cause. 

Not  that  any  change  of  opinion  on  the  point  just 
stated  will  materially  affect  the  general  estimate  in 
which  Mr.  Lincoln  is  held.  Although  his  popular 
ity,  due,  in  part  at  least,  to  the  extravagance  of 
over-zealous  admirers,  has  without  much  doubt 
already  passed  its  perihelion,  it  can  never  disappear 
or  greatly  diminish.  His  untiring  and  exhaustive 
labors  for  the  Union,  the  many  lovable  traits  of  his 
unique  personality,  his  unquestionable  honesty,  his 
courage,  his  patriotism,  and,  above  all,  his  tragic 
taking  off,  have  unalterably  determined  his  place  in 
the  regard  of  his  countrymen.  Indeed,  so  strong  is 
the  admiration  in  which  he  is  held,  that  it  would  be 
vain  to  attempt  to  disabuse  many,  by  any  amount 


Lincoln  and  Emancipation        149 

of  proof  and  argument,  of  the  opinion  that  Afri 
can  slavery  in  this  country  was  actually  and  ex 
clusively  killed  by  a  presidential  edict.  So  firmly 
fixed  in  the  popular  belief  is  that  historical  myth 
that  it  will  undoubtedly  live  for  many  years,  if  not 
generations,  although  history  in  the  end  will  right 
it  like  all  other  misunderstandings. 

Mr.  Lincoln  had  his  weaknesses  and  limitations, 
like  other  men.  All  must  admit  that  his  treatment 
of  the  slavery  question  was  not  without  its  mistakes. 
It  has  always  seemed  to  the  writer  that  his  most 
ardent  admirers  seriously  blunder  in  claiming  super- 
lativeness  for  him  in  that  regard,  and  more  especially 
in  giving  him  credit  for  results  that  were  due  to  the 
efforts  of  other  men.  His  fame  is  secure  without 
such  misappropriation.  He  would  not  ask  it  if 
living,  and  it  will  in  due  time  be  condemned  by 
history. 


CHAPTER   XIX 

THE  END  OF  ABOLITIONISM 

THE  original  and  distinctive  Abolition  move 
ment  that  was  directed  against  slavery  in  all 
parts  of  the  land  without  regard  to  State  or  terri 
torial  lines,  and  because  it  was  assumed  to  be  wrong 
in  principle  and  practice,  may  be  said,  as  far  as  the 
country  at  large  was  concerned,  to  have  culminated 
at  the  advent  of  the  Republican  party.  To  a  con 
siderable  extent  it  disappeared,  but  its  disappearance 
was  that  of  one  stream  flowing  into  or  uniting  with 
another.  The  union  of  the  two  currents  extended, 
but  did  not  intensify,  the  Anti-Slavery  sentiment  of 
the  country.  It  diluted  it  and  really  weakened  it. 
It  brought  about  a  crisis  of  great  peril  to  the  cause 
of  Anti-Slaveryism  — -  in  some  respects  the  most 
critical  through  which  it  was  called  upon  to  pass. 
Many  of  those  attaching  themselves  to  the  Repub 
lican  party,  as  the  new  political  organization  was 
called,  were  not  in  sympathy  with  Abolitionism. 
They  were  utterly  opposed  to  immediate  emancipa 
tion  ;  or,  for  that  matter,  to  emancipation  of  any 
kind.  They  wanted  slavery  to  remain  where  it  was, 
and  were  perfectly  willing  that  it  should  be  undis 
turbed.  They  disliked  the  blacks,  and  did  not  want 
to  have  them  freed,  fearing  that  if  set  at  liberty 
they  would  overrun  what  was  then  free  soil. 

150 


The  End  of  Abolitionism         15 [ 

The  writer  recollects  hearing  a  prominent    man 
in  the  new  party,  who  about  that  time  was  making 
a  public  speech,  declare  with  great  emphasis  that, 
"as  for  the  niggers,  they  are  where  they  ought  to 
be."    The  speaker  on  that  occasion  was  one  of  many 
who  belonged  to  the  debris  of  the  broken-up  Whig 
party,  and  who  drifted  into  Republicanism  because 
there  was  no  other  more  attractive  harbor  to  go  to. 
One  of  these  men  was  Abraham  Lincoln,  whom  I 
heard  declare  in  his  debate  with  Douglas  at  Alton, 
Illinois:  "I  was  with  the  old-line  Whigs  from  the 
origin  to  the  end  of  their  party."     The  Whigs  were 
never  an  Anti-Slavery  party.     The  recruits  to  Re 
publicanism  from  that  quarter  were  generally  very 
tender  on  "the  nigger  question,"  and  the  most  they 
were  prepared  to  admit  was  that  they  were  opposed 
to  slavery's  extension.     These  men  largely  domi 
nated  the  new  party.     They  generally  dictated  its 
platforms,  which,  compared  with  earlier  Abolition 
utterances,   were   extremely  timid,   and   they  had 
much  to  do  with  making  party  nominations.     Their 
favorite  candidates  were  not  those  whose  opinions 
on  the  slavery  question  were  positive  and  well  un 
derstood,  but  those  whose  views  were  unsettled  if 
not  altogether  unknown.     When  General  Fremont 
was  nominated  for  the  Presidency,  not  one  in  ten 
of  those  supporting  him  knew  what  his  opinions  on 
that  subject  were,  and  a  good  many  of  them  did  not 
care.     Mr.  Lincoln  was  accepted  in  much  the  same 
way. 

It  is  true  that,  from  certain  expressions  about  the 
danger  to  our  national  house  from  being  "half 
free"  and  "half  slave,"  and  other  generalizations 


The  Abolitionists 


of  a  more  or  less  academic  sort,  it  was  known  that 
Mr.  Lincoln  was  antagonistic  to  slavery;  but  as  to 
whether  he  favored  that  institution's  immediate  or 
speedy  extinguishment,  and,  if  so,  by  what  meas 
ures,  was  altogether  unknown.  We  now  know, 
from  what  has  been  set  forth  in  another  chapter, 
that  at  the  time  of  his  first  nomination  and  elec 
tion,  he  had  very  few  things  in  common  with  the 
Abolitionists.  He  then  evidently  had  no  thought 
of  being  hailed  as  the  *  '  liberator  of  a  race.  "  He  pre 
ferred,  for  the  time  at  least,  that  the  race  in  question 
should  remain  where  it  was,  and  as  it  was,  unless  it 
could  be  bodily  transported  to  some  other  country 
and  be  put  under  the  protection  of  some  other  flag. 

He  did  not  break  with  the  Abolitionists,  although 
he  kept  on  the  edge  of  a  quarrel  with  them,  and 
especially  with  what  he  called  the"Greeley  faction," 
a  good  part  of  the  time.  He  never  liked  them  v  but 
he  was  a  shrewd  man  —  a  born  politician  —  and  was 
too  sagacious  to  discard  the  principal  round  in  the 
ladder  by  which  he  had  climbed  to  eminence.  He 
managed  to  keep  in  touch  with  the  Anti-Slavery 
movement  through  all  its  steady  advancement,  but, 
as  elsewhere  stated,  it  was  as  a  follower  rather  than 
as  a  leader. 

While  a  resident  of  the  slave  State  of  Missouri,  I 
twice  voted  for  Mr.  Lincoln,  which  was  some  evi 
dence  of  my  personal  feeling  toward  him.  Both 
times  I  did  it  somewhat  reluctantly.  On  the  first 
occasion  there  were  four  candidates.  Breckenridge 
and  Bell  were  Southern  men  —  both  by  residence 
and  principle  —  and  had  no  claim  on  Anti-Slavery 
support.  But  with  Douglas  the  case  was  different. 


The  End  of  Abolitionism         153 

He  had  quarreled  with  the  pro-slavery  leaders,  al 
though  of  his  own  party.  He  had  defied  President 
Buchanan  in  denouncing  border-ruffianism  in  Kan 
sas.  He  had  refused  to  give  up  his  "popular  sover 
eignty"  dogma,  although  it  clearly  meant  ultimate 
free  soil.  The  slave-masters  hated  him  far  more 
than  they  did  Lincoln.  I  heard  them  freely  discuss 
the  matter.  They  were  more  afraid  of  the  vindic- 
tiveness  of  the  fiery  Douglas  than  of  the  opposi 
tion  of  good-hearted,  conservative  Lincoln.  In  my 
opinion  there  was  good  reason  for  that  feeling. 
Douglas,  as  President,  would  undoubtedly  have 
pushed  the  war  for  the  Union  with  superior  energy, 
and  slavery  would  have  suffered  rougher  treatment 
from  his  hands  than  it  did  from  Mr.  Lincoln's. 
There  was  another  reason  why  the  slaveholders  pre 
ferred  the  election  of  Lincoln  to  that  of  Douglas. 
Lincoln's  election  would  furnish  the  better  pretext 
for  the  rebellion  on  which  they  were  bent,  and 
which  they  had  already  largely  planned.  They 
were  resolved  to  defeat  Douglas  at  all  hazards,  and 
they  succeeded. 

Douglas  had  been  very  distasteful  to  the  Abo 
litionists.  They  called  him  a  "dough  -  face." 
Nevertheless,  quite  a  number  of  them  where  I  lived 
in  Missouri  voted  for  him.  Missouri  was  the  only 
State  he  carried,  and  there  he  had  less  than  five 
hundred  majority.  He  got  more  than  that  many 
free-soil  votes.  I  was  strongly  tempted  to  give  him 
mine.  Chiefly  on  account  of  political  associations, 
I  voted  for  Lincoln. 

When  it  came  to  the  second  election,  I  again 
voted  for  Mr.  Lincoln  with  reluctance.  The  principal 


154  The  Abolitionists 

reason  for  my  hesitancy  was  his  treatment  of  the 
Anti-Slavery  people  of  the  border  slave .  States, 
and  especially  of  Missouri.  The  grounds  for  my 
objection  on  that  score  will  appear  in  the  next 
chapter,  which  deals  with  the  Missouri  embroglio, 
as  it  was  called. 

From  what  has  just  been  stated,  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  cause  of  Anti-Slaveryism  had,  at  the  forma 
tion  of  the  Republican  party,  reached  a  most  peril 
ous  crisis.  It  was  in  danger  of  being  submerged 
and  suffocated  by  unsympathetic,  if  not  positively 
unfriendly,  associations.  It  ran  the  risk,  after  so 
many  years  of  toil  and  conflict,  of  being  undone  by 
those  in  whose  support  it  was  forced  to  confide. 
Such  would  undoubtedly  have  been  its  fate  if,  owing 
to  circumstances  over  which  no  political  party  or 
other  organization  of  men  had  control,  the  current 
of  Anti-Slavery  sentiment  had  not  risen  to  a  flood 
that  swept  all  before  it. 

It  is  rather  a  curious  circumstance  that,  at  the 
crisis  just  alluded  to,  the  nearest  approach  to  original 
Abolitionism  that  was  to  be  found,  was  in  a  slave 
State.  In  Missouri  there  was  an  organized  opposi 
tion  to  slavery  that  had  been  maintained  for  several 
years,  and  which  was  never  abandoned.  The  vitality 
displayed  by  this  movement  was  undoubtedly  due 
in  large  measure  to  the  inspiration  of  the  man  who 
was  its  originator,  if  not  its  leader.  That  man  was 
Thomas  H.  Benton.  Whether  Benton  was  ever  an 
Abolitionist  or  not,  has  been  a  much-disputed  ques 
tion,  but  one  thing  is  certain,  and  that  is  that  the 
men  who  sat  at  his  feet,  who  were  his  closest  dis 
ciples  and  imbibed  the  most  of  his  spirit — such  as 


The  End  of  Abolitionism         155 

B.  Gratz  Brown,  John  How,  the  Blairs,  the  Filleys, 
and  other  influential  Missourians, — were  Abolition 
ists.     Some  of  them  weakened  under  the  influence 
of  the   national  administration,  but  not  a  few  of 
them  maintained  their  integrity.     Even  in  the  first 
days  of  the  Civil  War,  when  all  was  chaos  there,  an 
organization  was  maintained,  although  at  one  time 
its  only  working  and   visible   representatives  con 
sisted  of  the  members  of  a  committee  of  four  men 
— a  fifth  having   withdrawn — who   were  B.   Gratz 
Brown,  afterwards  a  United  States  Senator;  Thomas 

C.  Fletcher,  afterwards  Governor  of  the  State;  Hon. 
Benjamin  R.  Bonner,  of  St.  Louis,  and  the  writer 
of  this  narrative.     They  issued  an  appeal  that  was 
distributed  all  over  the  State,  asking  those  in  sym 
pathy  with  their  views  to  hold  fast  to  their  principles, 
and  to  keep  up  the  contest  for  unconditional  free 
dom.     To  that  appeal  there  was  an  encouraging 
number  of  favorable  responses. 

And  thus  it  was  that  when  Abolitionism  may  be 
said  to  have  been  lost  by  merger  elsewhere,  it  re 
mained  in  its  independence  and  integrity  in  slave- 
holding  Missouri,  where  it  kept  up  a  struggle  for 
free  soil,  and  in  four  years  so  far  made  itself  master 
of  the  situation  that  a  constitutional  State  conven 
tion,  chosen  by  popular  vote,  adopted  an  ordinance 
under  which  an  emancipationist  Governor  issued 
his  proclamation,  declaring  that  "hence  and  forever 
no  person  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  State  shall 
be  subject  to  any  abridgment  of  liberty,  except 
such  as  the  law  shall  prescribe  for  the  common 
good,  or  know  any  master  but  God." 

The  writer  entered  on  this  work  with  no  purpose 


156  The  Abolitionists 

of  relating  or  discussing  the  story  of  the  Republican 
party,  in  whole  or  in  any  part.  His  subject  was 
Abolitionism,  and  his  task  would  now  be  completed 
but  for  the  movement  in  the  State  of  Missouri,  to 
which  reference  has  just  been  made.  That  mani 
festation,  he  thinks,  is  deserving  of  recognition, 
both  on  its  own  account  and  as  a  continuation  of 
the  original  movement,  and  he  is  the  more  inclined 
to  contribute  to  its  discussion  because  he  was  then 
a  Missourian  by  residence,  and  had  something  to  do 
with  its  successful  prosecution. 


CHAPTER   XX 

MISSOURI 

IN  his  interesting,  though  rather  melodramatic, 
romance,  The  Crisis,  Winston  Churchill  tells  the 
imaginary  story  of  a  young  lawyer  who  went  from 
New  England  to  St.  Louis,  and  settled  there  shortly 
before  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War.  Having  an 
abundance  of  leisure,  and  being  an  Abolitionist,  he 
devoted  a  portion  of  the  time  that  was  not  absorbed 
by  his  profession  to  writing  articles  on  slavery  for 
the  'Missouri  Democrat,  which,  notwithstanding  its 
name,  was  the  organ  of  the  Missouri  emancipa 
tionists,  and  lived  in  part  on  the  money  he  received 
as  compensation  for  that  work.  That  in  part 
describes  the  author's  experience.  .He  was  at  that 
time  a  young  lawyer  in  St.  Louis,  to  which  place 
he  had  come  from  the  North,  and  those  who  have 
read  the  earlier  chapters  of  this  work  are  aware  that 
he  was  an  Abolitionist.  Having  a  good  deal  of 
time  that  was  not  taken  up  by  his  professional  em 
ployments,  he  occupied  a  portion  of  it  in  writing 
Anti-Slavery  contributions  to  the  Democrat,  and, 
so  far  as  he  knows,  he  was  the  only  person  who  to 
any  extent  did  so.  A  collection  was  made  of  a 
portion  of  his  articles,  and  with  money  contributed 
by  friends  of  the  cause,  they  were  published  in 

157 


158  The  Abolitionists 

pamphlet  form  under  the  title  of  Hints  toward 
Emancipation  in  Missouri,  and  distributed  through 
out  the  State. 

There  the  parallelism  of  the  cases  ceases.  The 
writer  got  no  pecuniary  compensation  for  his  labor. 
He  asked  for  none  and  expected  none.  The  Demo 
crat  was  then  in  no  condition  to  pay  for  volunteer 
services,  having  a  hard  struggle  for  existence.  He 
was  able  to  do  it  a  service  that,  possibly,  saved  it 
from  at  least  a  temporary  suspension.  One  of  its 
chief  difficulties  was  in  getting  printing  paper,  the 
manufacturer  it  had  been  patronizing  declining  to 
furnish  it  except  for  cash,  while  the  Democrat  needed 
partial  credit.  At  that  time  Louis  Snyder,  of 
Hamilton,  Ohio,  a  large  paper-maker,  visited  St. 
Louis  on  business  that  called  for  legal  assistance, 
and  I  was  employed  by  him.  When  the  work  in 
hand  was  finished,  I  remarked  that  there  was  some 
thing  else  he  might  do  in  St.  Louis  that  would  pay 
him.  I  explained  the  situation  of  the  Democrat^ 
and  assured  him  that,  in  my  opinion,  he  would  be 
perfectly  safe  in  giving  trust  to  its  proprietors,  who 
were  honest  men. 

"Will  you  indorse  their  paper?"  he  asked. 

Mr.  Snyder  was  a  crafty  as  well  as  a  thrifty  German. 

I  replied  that,  as  I  was  not  a  wealthy  man,  the 
question  did  not  seem  to  be  pertinent. 

14  Will  you  indorse  their  paper  for  one  thousand 
dollars?"  was  his  next  question. 

Being  by  this  time  somewhat  "spunked  up,"  I 
replied  that  I  would. 

"Then  I  shall  be  pleased  to  meet  your  friends," 
said  Mr.  Snyder. 


Missouri  159 

The  result  of  the  interview  that  followed  was  such 
that  the  Democrat  was  materially  assisted  in  con 
tinuing  its  publication. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  state  that  I  never  heard 
anything  more  of  the  one-thousand-dollar  indorse 
ment,  the  sole  purpose  of  which  was,  doubtless,  to 
test  my  sincerity. 

Soon  afterwards  I  was  offered  the  political  editor 
ship  of  the  Democrat^  which  I  accepted  on  the  one 
condition  that  there  was  to  be  "no  let-up  on  eman 
cipation."  I  held  the  position  until  Missouri  was  a 
free  State. 

In  a  surprisingly  short  time  after  the  question 
of  Missouri's  status  in  reference  to  the  Union 
was  decided,  the  issue  between  Pro-Slaveryism  and 
Anti-Slavcryism  came  up.  Political  parties  ranged 
themselves  upon  it.  Those  who  favored  slavery's 
immediate  or  speedy  abolishment  became  known  as 
Radicals,  while  those  advocating  its  prolongation 
were  called  Conservatives.  Those  descriptives, 
however,  were  too  mild  for  such  a  time,  and  they 
were  quickly  superseded  by  a  more  expressive  local 
nomenclature.  The  Radicals,  because  of  their 
alleged  sympathy  with  the  negro,  were  branded  as 
"Charcoals/*  and  their  opponents,  made  up  of 
Republicans,  Democrats,  and  Semi-Unionists,  be 
cause  of  the  variegated  complexion  of  the  mixture, 
were  set  down  as  "Claybanks."  Mulattoes  are 
Claybanks. 

Tne  Claybanks,  or  Conservatives,  at  the  outset 
enjoyed  a  decided  advantage  in  having  the  State 
government  on  their  side.  This  was  not  the  regu 
larly  elected  administration,  which  was  driven  out 


160  The  Abolitionists 

because  of  its  open  support  of  secession,  but  its 
provisional  successor.     In  trying  to  take  the  State 
out  of  the  Union  with  a  show  of  legality,  the  lawful 
Governor  and  his  official  associates  made  provision 
for  a  State  convention  to  be  chosen  by  the  people, 
which  they  expected  to  control,  but  which,  having 
a    Unionist    majority,    played   the    boomerang   on 
them  by  sending  them  adrift  and  taking  the  affairs 
of  the   State   into  its  own   hands.     In  this  it  had 
opposition.     The  most  progressive  men  of  the  State 
insisted  that,  after  it  had  settled   the  question   of 
Missouri's  relations  to  the  Union,  with  reference  to 
which  it  was  specially  chosen,  it  \vasfunctus  officio. 
They  held  that  there  should  be  a  new  and  up-to- 
date  convention,  especially  as  the  old  one,  owing  to 
the  desertion  of  many  of   its  treasonably   inclined 
members,  including  General  Sterling  Price,  of  the 
Confederate  Army,  who  was  its  first  president,  had 
become  "a  rump,"  and  so  there  were  old-conven- 
tionists  and  new-conventionists.     The  old-conven 
tion  men,  however,  were  in  the  saddle.     They  had 
the  governmental  machinery,  and  were  resolved  to 
hold  on  to  it.     In  that  spirit  the  convention   pro 
ceeded  to  fill  the  vacant  offices.    It  was  in  sentiment 
strongly  pro-slavery,  as  was  shown  by  the  fact  that 
a  proposal  looking  to  the  very  gradual  extinguish 
ment  of  slavery  was  rejected   by   it   in  an   almost 
unanimous  vote,  a  circumstance  that  led  the  leading 
pro-slavery  journal  of  the  State  to  boast  that  the 
convention   had  killed   emancipation   44at  the   first 
pop."     Very  naturally  such  a  body  selected  pro- 
slavery  officials.     Hamilton   R.    Gamble,  whom  it 
made  Governor,  was  a  bigoted  supporter  of  "the 


Missouri  161 

institution."  He  had  not  long  before  been  mixed 
up  in  the  proceedings  that  compelled  Elijah  P. 
Lovcjoy  to  leave  Missouri  for  Alton,  Illinois,  where 
he  was  murdered  by  a  pro-slavery  mob.  Gamble 
was  an  able  and  ambitious  man. 

The  Conservatives,  likewise,  had  the  backing  of 
the  Federal  Administration —a  statement  that  to  a 
good  many  people  nowadays  will  be  surprising. 
There  were  reasons  why  such  should  be  the  case. 
Judge  Bates,  of  Missouri,  who  was  Attorney-Gen 
eral  in  Lincoln's  Cabinet,  had  long  been  Gamble's 
law  partner  and  most  intimate  friend.  He  never 
was  more  than  nominally  a  Republican.  Another 
member  of  the  Cabinet  was  Montgomery  Blair,  of 
Maryland,  who  had  been  a  resident  of  Missouri,  and 
was  a  brother  of  General  Francis  P.  Blair,  Jr.,  of  St. 
Louis.  General  Blair  had  been  the  leader  of  the 
Missouri  emancipationists,  but  had  turned  against 
them.  For  his  face-about  there  were,  at  least,  two 
intelligible  reasons.  One  was  that  in  the  quarrel 
between  him  and  Fremont  the  most  of  his  former 
followers  had  sided  with  Fremont.  That  was  enough 
to  sour  him  against  them.  The  other  was  a  very 
natural  desire  to  be  solid  with  the  administration  at 
Washington,  which,  as  elsewhere  shown,  was  not 
then  actively  Anti-Slavery.  It  did  not  want  the 
question  of  slavery  agitated,  especially  in  the  border 
slave  States. 

The  Blairs  were  a  clan  as  well  as  a  family.  The 
quarrel  of  one  was  the  quarrel  of  all,  and  the  Mis 
souri  Radicals  had  no  more  effective  antagonist  than 
the  old  Washington  editor  and  politician,  Francis 
P.  Blair,  Sr.,  the  family's  head,  who  was  so  intimate 


1 62  The  Abolitionists 

with  the  President  that  it  was  understood  he  could 
at  any  time  enter  the  White  House  by  the  kitchen 
door. 

The  writer  was  once  a  member  of  a  delegation  of 
Missouri  "Charcoals"  that  went  to  Washington  to 
see  the  President.  An  hour  was  set  for  the  inter 
view,  and  we  were  promptly  at  the  door  of  the 
President's  chamber,  where  we  were  kept  waiting 
for  a  considerable  time.  At  last  the  door  opened, 
but  before  we  could  enter,  out  stepped  a  little. old 
man  who  tripped  away  very  lightly  for  one  of  his 
years.  That  little  old  man  was  Francis  P.  Blair, 
Sr.,  and  we  knew  that  we  had  been  forestalled.  The 
President  received  us  politely  and  patiently  listened 
to  what  we  had  to  say,  but  our  mission  was  fruitless. 
The  Radicals  of  Missouri  sent  deputation  after 
deputation  to  the  White  House,  and  got  nothing 
they  wanted.  The  Conservatives  never  sent  a 
deputation,  and  got  all  they  wanted.  They  had 
advocates  at  the  President's  elbows  all  the  time. 

With  both  State  and  Federal  administrations 
against  them,  the  Missouri  Charcoals  may  be 
regarded  as  foolhardy  in  persisting  in  the  fight  they 
made  for  the  deliverance  of  their  State  from  slavery. 
They  did  persist,  however,  and  with  such  success  in 
propagating  their  views  that  Governor  Gamble  and 
the  other  Conservative  leaders  decided  that  heroic 
measures  to  hold  them  in  check  were  necessary. 
He  undertook  to  cut  the  ground  from  under  their 
feet.  The  old  convention  that  had  killed  emanci 
pation  "at  the  first  pop,"  or  as  much  of  it  as  was 
in  existence,  was  called  together  by  the  Governor, 
who  appealed  to  it  to  take  such  action  as  would 


Missouri  163 

quiet  agitation  on  the  slavery  question.  Accord 
ingly,  it  proceeded  to  enact  what  was  called  an 
emancipation  ordinance.  The  trouble  with  it  was 
that  it  emancipated  nobody.  It  provided  for  the 
liberation  of  part  of  the  slaves  at  a  distant  future 
day,  allowing  the  rest  to  remain  as  they  were.  The 
Radicals  simply  laughed  at  the  measure.  They 
pronounced  it  a  snare  and  a  fraud,  and  went  right 
on  with  their  work  for  unconditional  freedom,  and 
the  slave-owners  continued  to  hold  their  human 
property  the  same  as  before. 

The  Conservatives,  however,  had  not  exhausted 
their  resources.  They  sought  to  secure  the  military 
as  well  as  the  civil  control.  On  the  assurance  that 
he  could  maintain  peace  and  order,  Governor  Gam 
ble  was  given  authority  by  the  President  to  recruit 
an  army  of  State  troops,  which,  although  equipped 
and  paid  out  of  the  national  treasury,  he  was  to 
officer  and  direct.  The  organization  was  entrusted 
to  General  John  M.  Scofield,  a  resident  of  Missouri, 
and  one  of  the  Governor's  friends. 

The  political  advantage  to  the  Conservatives  of 
exercising  military  control  at  such  a  time  is  obvious 
enough.  But  at  first  there  was  an  obstruction  in 
the  person  of  General  Samuel  R.  Curtis,  the  Fed 
eral  commander  of  the  district,  who  was  not  a  man 
to  waive  his  superior  prerogative  at  a  time  when 
martial  law  prevailed,  and  who  was,  besides,  openly 
in  sympathy  with  the  Radicals.  They  got  not  only 
protection  from  him,  but  about  all  the  patronage 
he  had  to  give.  Pretty  soon  it  was  discovered  that 
active  efforts  for  the  removal  of  Curtis  were  in  pro 
gress.  Charges  of  irregularities — afterwards  shown 


164  The  Abolitionists 

to  be  without  any  foundation  —  were  circulated 
against  him.  Indignant  because  of  such  injustice 
to  their  friend,  the  Radicals  were  further  incensed 
when  they  learned  that  the  scheme  was  to  make 
Scofield  his  successor. 

Against  General  Scofield,  as  a  gentleman  and 
soldier,  they  had  nothing  to  say ;  but  his  affiliation 
with  their  opponents  made  him  obnoxious  to  them, 
and  they  sent  a  vigorous  protest  against  his  appoint 
ment  to  the  President.  The  proposed  change, 
however,  was  made,  and  the  inevitable  disagree 
ment  between  the  new  commander  and  the  Radi 
cals  quickly  developed. 

Scofield's  administration  was  not  successful.  The 
principal  cause  of  failure  was  the  adoption  of  Gov 
ernor  Gamble's  policy  of  trying  to  run  the  State 
without  the  help  of  Federal  troops.  They  were 
pretty  much  all  sent  away,  and  an  elaborate  plan 
for  substituting  an  "enrolled  militia"  was  put  in 
operation.  Here  was  an  opportunity  of  which  the 
Rebels  were  quick  to  take  advantage.  They  had  a 
wholesome  regard  for  United  States  soldiers,  par 
ticularly  under  Curtis,  who  at  Pea  Ridge  had  given 
them  the  worst  drubbing  they  ever  received  west  of 
the  Mississippi,  but  they  cared  little  for  "Gamble's 
militia,"  into  which  a  good  many  of  their  friends 
were  mustered,  and  when  the  pressure  of  Curtis's 
strong  hand  was  removed  they  at  once  aroused  to 
pernicious  activity. 

At  this  time  it  can  be  safely  said  that  nowhere, 
outside  of  hell,  was  there  such  a  horrible  condition  as 
prevailed  in  Missouri.  Singly  and  in  squads  a  good 
many  of  Price's  men  returned  from  the  South,  and 


Missouri  165 

with  local  sympathizers  forming  guerrilla  bands 
under  such  leaders  as  "Bill"  Anderson,  Poindexter, 
Jackson,  and  Quantrcll,  soon  had  practical  posses 
sion  of  the  greater  part  of  the  State.  The  Radicals 
were  the  principal  sufferers.  Conservatives,  except 
by  the  occasional  loss  of  property,  were  rarely 
molested.  Between  them  and  the  Rebels  there  was 
often  an  agreement  for  mutual  protection — in  fact, 
it  was  not  always  easy  to  draw  the  line  between 
them, — but  the  Charcoals,  especially  if  they  were 
"Dutchmen,"  could  look  for  no  compassion.  They 
were  shot  down  in  their  fields.  They  were  called 
to  their  doors  at  night  and  there  dispatched.  Their 
houses  were  burned  and  their  stock  stolen.  Many 
families  of  comparative  wealth  and  refinement,  in 
cluding  women  and  children,  because  of  the  inse 
curity  of  their  homes,  slept  in  the  woods  for  weeks 
and  months.  The  Radicals  were  not  always  for 
tunate  enough  to  escape  bodily  torture.  Having 
captured  one  of  the  best  known  among  them,  an 
old  man  and  a  civilian,  some  of  "Bill"  Anderson's 
men  set  him  up  against  the  wall  of  his  house  as  a 
target  for  pistol  practice.  Their  play  consisted  in 
seeing  how  near  they  could  put  their  shots  without 
hitting,  and  this  amusement  they  kept  up  while  his 
wife  was  running  about  in  an  effort  to  raise  the 
amount  of  money  that  was  demanded  for  his 
ransom. 

So  successful  were  the  Rebel  bands  at  this  time 
that  Missouri  was  not  large  enough  to  hold  them. 
One  of  them,  led  by  Quantrell,  crossed  the  Kansas 
line,  captured  the  city  of  Lawrence,  and  butchered 
two  hundred  of  its  peaceable  inhabitants,  while  the 


1 66  The  Abolitionists 

border  towns  and  cities  of  Iowa  and  Illinois  were 
greatly  alarmed  for  their  safety. 

So  intolerable  did  the  situation  become,  that  the 
Radicals  from  all  parts  of  the  State  met  in  confer 
ence  and  decided  to  send  a  delegation  to  ask  Mr. 
Lincoln  to  change  the  department  commander,  in 
the  hope  that  it  would  bring  a  change  of  policy. 

It  is  to  be  presumed  that  no  President  was  ever 
confronted  with  such  a  motley  crowd  of  visitors  as 
the  members  of  that  delegation — between  seventy 
and  eighty  in  number — as  they  formed  in  line  around 
three  sides  of  the  East  Room  in  the  White  House. 
Their  garments  were  a  sight !  Some  of  the  men 
were  in  full  military  dress  and  some  in  civilian 
clothes,  but  the  costumes  of  a  majority  were  a  mix 
ture  of  both  kinds,  just  as  accident  had  arranged  it, 
and  pretty  much  all  showed  evidences  of  hard  usage. 
One  of  the  most  forward  of  the  delegates  had  neither 
cuffs  nor  collar,  and  his  shirt  had  manifestly  not 
been  near  a  laundry  for  a  long  time.  He  apologized 
to  the  President  for  his  appearance,  saying  that  he 
had  been  sleeping  in  the  woods  where  toilet  accom 
modations  were  very  indifferent.  Two  or  three  of 
the  men  bore  marks  of  battle  with  the  guerrillas,  in 
patched-up  faces,  and  one  of  them  carried  an  arm 
that  had  been  disabled  by  a  gun  shot  in  a  red  hand 
kerchief  sling.  In  speaking  of  these  visitors,  the 
President  afterwards  jocularly  referred  to  them  as 
"those  crackerjacks  from  Missouri." 

A  formal  address  was  presented,  the  principal 
point  being  that,  as  the  Missouri  Unionists  had  fur 
nished  many  thousand  recruits  to  the  Federal  Army, 
they  had  a  right  to  look  to  the  Government  for 


Missouri  167 

soldiers  to  assist  in  protecting  their  families  and 
their  property.  And  here  it  will  do  no  harm  to 
state  that,  notwithstanding  the  heavy  drain  made 
by  the  Confederacy,  Missouri,  during  the  war,  fur 
nished  109,000  men  to  the  national  army. 

After  their  formal  address  had  been  presented  to 
the  President,  the  members  of  the  delegation  tackled 
him,  one  after  the  other,  as  the  spirit  moved  them, 
and  it  can  truthfully  be  said  that  in  some  of  the 
bouts  that  ensued  he  did  not  come  out  "first  best." 
He  admitted  as  much  when,  afterwards  referring  to 
this  meeting,  he  spoke  of  the  Missouri  Radicals  as 
"the  unhandiest  fellows  in  the  world  to  deal  with  in 
a  discussion." 

The  conclusion  of  the  interview  was  attended  with 
an  unexpected  incident.  The  recognized  leading 
spokesman  of  the  Missourians  was  the  Hon.  Charles 
D.  Drake,  of  St.  Louis,  who  was  made  Chief  Justice 
of  the  Court  of  Claims  at  Washington  by  Grant, 
when  he  became  President.  He  was  a  very  forcible 
speaker.  As  Mr.  Lincoln  indicated  by  rising  from 
his  seat  that  the  conference  was  at  an  end,  Mr. 
Drake  stepped  forward  and  in  well-chosen  words 
thanked  him  for  the  lengthy  and  courteous  hearing 
he  had  given  his  visitors,  and  in  their  names  bade 
him  good-by.  Then  he  started  for  the  door,  but 
something  seemed  to  arrest  him.  Turning  sharply 
to  Mr.  Lincoln,  he  said:  "Mr.  President,  we  are 
about  to  return  to  our  homes.  Many  of  these  men 
before  you  live  where  rebel  sentiments  prevail  and 
where  they  are  surrounded  by  deadly  enemies.  They 
return  at  the  risk  of  their  lives,  and  let  me  tell  you 
that  if  any  of  their  lives  are  sacrificed  by  reason  of 


1 68  The  Abolitionists 

the  military  administration  you  maintain  in  Mis 
souri,  their  blood  will  be  upon  your  garments  and 
not  upon  ours." 

The  President,  evidently  greatly  surprised,  made 
no  oral  reply.  Instead  of  speaking  he  raised  his 
handkerchief  to  his  eyes.  Seeing  that  he  was  weep- 
ing,  the  delegates  quietly  and  quickly  filed  out, 
leaving  Mr.  Lincoln  with  his  face  still  concealed. 

The  President  denied  the  delegation's  request, 
although  his  formal  decision  was  not  announced 
for  several  days,  and  its  members  returned  to  their 
homes,  when  fortunate  enough  to  have  them,  sorely 
disappointed. 

It  is  here  well  enough  to  state  that  two  or  three 
months  later  the  President  relieved  Scofield  from  his 
Missouri  command  and  sent  him  to  the  front  in  the 
South,  much  to  the  betterment  of  his  military  repu 
tation,  and  doubtless  to  his  own  personal  gratifica 
tion.  Rosecrans  was  made  his  successor.  Among 
the  earliest  things  he  did  was  the  bringing  into  the 
State  of  a  considerable  force  of  Federal  troops  under 
Generals  Pleasanton  and  A.  J.  Smith.  These  were 
sent  through  the  State.  The  effect  was  almost 
magical.  Some  of  the  guerrilla  bands  went  South 
to  join  Price,  but  the  most  of  them  dissolved  and 
disappeared.  Their  members,  doubtless,  went  back 
to  their  former  occupations,  and  that  was  the  last  of 
them.  Missouri  was  pacified. 

But  were  the  Missouri  Radicals  so  far  disheartened 
by  their  rebuffs  from  the  President  that  they  gave 
up  the  fight?  Not  a  bit  of  it.  There  was  a  tribunal 
in  some  respects  higher  than  the  President,  and  to 
that  they  resolved  to  go.  The  National  Republican 


Missouri  169 

Convention  to  nominate  a  successor  to  Mr.  Lincoln 
was  approaching,  and  they  decided  to  appeal  to  it 
in  a  way  that  would  compel  a  decision  between  them 
and  the  President.  They  appointed  a  delegation  to 
the  convention,  which  they  instructed  for  General 
Grant.  The  Claybanks  also  appointed  a  delegation, 
which  they  instructed  for  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  thus  the 
issue  was  made.  The  convention,  although  nominat 
ing  Mr.  Lincoln  by  a  vote  that,  outside  of  Mis 
souri's,  was  unanimous,  admitted  the  Charcoals  and 
excluded  the  Claybanks  by  the  remarkable  vote  of 
four  hundred  and  forty  to  four. 

While  of  no  special  consequence,  some  rather 
humorous  experiences  in  connection  with  the  events 
just  spoken  of  may  not  be  lacking  in  interest  or 
altogether  out  of  place  in  a  work  like  this. 

Before  leaving  Missouri  for  the  National  Repub 
lican  Convention,  which  was  held  in  Baltimore,  June 
8,  1864,  the  Radical  delegates,  including  the  writer, 
decided  to  go  by  way  of  Washington  and  call  upon 
the  President,  thinking  that,  as  there  was  a  contest 
ahead  with  his  professed  Missouri  supporters,  a  bet 
ter  understanding  with  him  might  be  of  advantage. 
As  they  were  pledged  to  vote  for  another  man,  such 
a  proceeding  on  their  part  was  certainly  somewhat 
audacious;  nevertheless,  Mr.  Lincoln  received  us 
graciously  and  listened  patiently  to  what  we  had 
to  say. 

"Mr.  President,"  said  one  of  the  delegates,  "if 
you  were  to  go  out  to  Missouri  you  would  find  your 
best  friends  as  well  as  practically  all  the  good  Re 
publicans  of  the  State  on  our  side  of  the  dividing 
line/1 


1 70  The  Abolitionists 

"Well,"  remarked  the  President  very  deliberately, 
"in  speaking  of  dividing  lines,  the  situation  in  Mis 
souri  recalls  the  story  of  the  old  man  who  had  an 
unruly  sow  and  pigs.  One  day,  when  they  escaped 
from  their  enclosure  and  disappeared,  he  called  his 
boys  and  started  out  to  hunt  the  runaways.  Up 
one  side  of  the  creek  they  went;  but  while  they  dis 
covered  plenty  of  tracks  and  rootings,  they  found 
no  hogs.  'Now  let  us  go  over  to  the  other  side  of 
the  creek,'  said  the  old  gentleman;  but  the  result 
was  the  same — many  signs  but  no  pigs.  'Confound 
those  swine!'  exclaimed  the  old  man,  'they  root 
and  root  on  both  sides,  but  it  's  mighty  hard  to  find 
them  on  either.' 

We,  of  course,  were  left  to  make  the  application 
to  ourselves,  and  that  was  all  the  satisfaction  we  got. 

Being  greatly  elated  over  our  victory  in  the  con 
vention,  and  thinking  it  settled  some,  if  not  all, 
disputed  points,  we  decided  to  return  by  way  of 
Washington  and  again  call  on  the  President.  We 
wanted  to  come  to  some  sort  of  understanding  with 
him.  As  we  had  just  voted  against  his  nomination 
such  a  step  may  have  been  more  audacious  than  our 
previous  action.  But,  for  all  that,  a  pretty  late 
hour  on  the  night  of  the  convention  found  us  at  the 
door  of  the  President's  room,  seeking  an  inter 
view  that  had  been  promised  us  in  answer  to  a 
telegram. 

Now,  we  had  in  our  delegation  a  gentleman  who 
was  accustomed  to  imbibe  somewhat  freely  on 
occasions  like  that.  He  had  pushed  himself  to  the 
front,  and,  when  the  door  opened  for  us,  in  he 
rushed  shouting:  "Mr.  President!  Mr.  President! 


Missouri  171 

Mr.  President !  we  have  found  that  old  sow  and  pigs 
for  you!  " 

The  President,  who  was  standing  on  the  opposite 
side  of  the  room,  looked  somewhat  startled  at  first ; 
but  as  he  evidently  recalled  the  illustration  he  had 
given  to  us,  and  which  was  being  returned  to  him, 
a  broad  grin  went  over  his  face,  although  nothing 
further  was  said  about  the  swine.  But  the  incident 
was  disastrous  to  our  business.  We  were  relying 
on  a  prominent  St.  Louis  lawyer,  who  was  with  us, 
to  present  our  case  in  a  calm  and  impressive  way; 
but  he,  taking  offense  at  being  so  unceremoniously 
forestalled,  kept  his  intended  speech  to  himself. 
His  dignity  was  hurt,  and  he  had  nothing  to  say. 
In  fact,  he  walked  away  and  left  us.  The  result 
was  that  our  claims  were  rather  lamely  presented, 
except  by  the  first  speaker,  and  we  left  the  official 
presence  not  a  little  chagrined  and  with  no  favorable 
assurance  having  been  obtained. 

By  all  recognized  party  rules,  when  the  nominat 
ing  convention  had  given  the  Missouri  Radicals  the 
stamp  of  regularity,  the  President  was  bound  to 
prefer  them  in  the  bestowal  of  patronage.  He  did 
nothing  of  the  kind.  At  his  death,  practically  all 
of  the  offices  in  Missouri  that  were  under  his  control 
were  held  by  Claybanks.  These  men  became  en 
thusiastic  supporters  of  Andrew  Johnson,  and,  at  the 
end  of  his  term,  to  a  man  went  over  to  the  Demo 
cratic  party,  of  which  their  leader,  General  Blair,  was 
soon  made,  on  the  ticket  with  Horatio  Seymour,  the 
Vice-Presidential  candidate.  At  Lincoln's  death, 
the  Claybanks,  as  an  organization,  went  out  of 
business. 


172  The  Abolitionists 

Very  different  was  the  treatment  the  Charcoals 
received  at  the  hands  of  General  Grant  when  he  be 
came  President.  He  made  the  leader  of  the  anti- 
Scofield  delegation  to  Washington  Chief  Justice  of 
the  Court  of  Claims.  He  made  two  or  three  other 
leading  Missouri  Radicals  foreign  ministers  and  of 
ficially  remembered  many  of  the  rest  of  them.  He 
had  been  a  Missourian,  and  it  was  well  known  that 
he  was  in  sympathy  with  the  Radicals  in  their  fight 
with  Lincoln. 

Although  the  Missouri  Radicals  did  not  favor  Mr. 
Lincoln's  candidature,  with  the  exception  of  a  few 
supporters  of  Fremont,  they  gave  him  their  loyal 
support  at  the  polls,  and  through  this  a  large  ma 
jority  in  the  State.  They  acted  towards  him  much 
more  cordially  than  he  ever  acted  toward  them. 

That  Mr.  Lincoln,  in  antagonizing  the  Missouri 
Free  Soilers,  acted  otherwise  than  from  the  most 
conscientious  impulses  the  writer  does  not  for  a 
moment  believe.  He  opposed  them  because  he 
disapproved  of  their  views  and  policy.  He  said  so 
most  distinctly  on  one  occasion.  Certain  German 
societies  of  St.  Louis,  having  adopted  a  set  of  reso 
lutions,  entrusted  them  to  James  Taussig,  a  leading 
lawyer  of  that  city,  to  present  to  the  President  in 
person.  Mr.  Taussig's  report  of  the  results  of  a 
two  hours'  interview  can  be  found  in  several  of  Mr. 
Lincoln's  biographies.  One  passage  from  the  report 
is  here  given  because  it  clearly  shows  Mr.  Lincoln's 
attitude  toward  the  Missouri  problem. 

"  The  President,"  says  Mr.  Taussig,  "  said  that  the 
Union  men  in  Missouri  who  are  in  favor  of  gradual 


Missouri  173 

emancipation,  represented  his  views  better  than  those 
who  are  in  favor  of  immediate  emancipation.  In  ex 
planation  of  his  views  on  this  subject  the  President  said 
that  in  his  speeches  he  had  frequently  used  as  an  illus 
tration  the  case  of  a  man  who  had  an  excrescence  on  the 
back  of  his  neck,  the  removal  of  which  in  one  operation 
would  result  in  the  death  of  the  patient,  while  tinkering 
it  off  by  degrees  would  preserve  life." 

"Although  sorely  tempted,"  continues  Mr.  Taussig, 
"  I  did  not  reply  with  the  illustration  of  the  dog  whose 
tail  was  amputated  by  inches,  but  confined  myself  to 
arguments.  The  President  announced  clearly  that,  so 
far  as  he  was  at  present  advised,  the  Radicals  in  Mis 
souri  had  no  right  to  consider  themselves  the  representa 
tives  of  his  views  on  the  subject  of  emancipation  in  that 
State." 

The  foregoing  interview,  it  is  well  enough  to 
state,  was  long  after  the  issuance  of  Mr.  Lincoln's 
Emancipation  Proclamation. 

In  addition  to  carrying  the  State  for  Mr.  Lincoln, 
the  Missouri  Radicals  carried  it  for  themselves. 
They  elected  a  constitutional  convention  that 
promptly  passed  an  unconditional  freedom  ordi 
nance.  And  thus  terminated  what  is  certainly  one 
of  the  most  notable  contests  in  our  political  history, 
bringing  about,  as  it  did,  the  triumph  of  a  reform 
of  unquestionable  value  to  civilization  and  hu 
manity,  which  was  accomplished  by  men  working 
without  patronage  or  other  outside  help,  with  no 
pecuniary  interest  at  stake,  and  no  incentive  beyond 
the  principle  involved. 


CHAPTER  XXI 

MISSOURI— Continued 

HERE   follows  an   extract   from  the  published 
proceedings  of  the  National  Republican  Con 
vention  of  1864,  in  which  Mr.  Lincoln  was  renomi- 
nated. 

"When  that  State  [Missouri]  was  called,  Mr.  J.  F. 
Hume  addressed  the  convention  as  follows: 

"  '  It  is  a  matter  of  great  regret  that  we  differ  from  the 
majority  of  the  convention  that  has  been  so  kind  to  the 
Radicals  of  Missouri,  but  we  came  here  instructed.  We 
represent  those  who  are  behind  us  at  home,  and  we 
recognize  the  right  of  instruction  and  intend  to  obey  our 
instruction;  but,  in  doing  so,  we  declare  emphatically 
that  we  are  with  the  Union  party  of  the  nation,  and  we 
intend  to  fight  ihe  battle  through  to  the  end  with  it,  and 
assist  in  carrying  it  to  victory.  We  will  support  your 
nominees  be  they  whom  they  may.  I  will  read  the  reso 
lution  adopted  by  the  convention  that  sent  us  here.'  ' 

[Here  resolution  of  instruction  was  read.] 

"  '  Mr.  President,  in  the  spirit  of  that  resolution  I 
cast  the  twenty-two  votes  of  Missouri  for  them  an  who 
stands  at  the  head  of  the  fighting  Radicals  of  the  nation 
—General  U.  S.  Grant.'  " 

The  contention  between  the  Missouri  Radical  and 
Conservative  delegations  was  thrashed  out  before 

174 


Missouri  175 

the  committee  on  delegates,  at  an  evening  session. 
Judge  Samuel  M.  Breckenridge,  of  St.  Louis,  sus 
tained  the  cause  of  the  Conservatives  in  a  very 
ingenious  argument,  while  the  writer  spoke  for  the 
Radicals.  The  result  was  very  satisfactory  to  the 
latter,  being,  with  the  exception  of  one  vote  for 
compromise,  a  unanimous  decision  in  their  favor. 
That  decision  was  sustained  by  the  convention  in  its 
next  day's  session  by  a  vote  of  four  hundred  and 
forty  to  four. 

Anticipating  that  the  subject  would  be  discussed 
on  the  floor  of  the  convention, — which  was  not  the 
case,  however, — I  asked  a  very  eloquent  St.  Louis 
lawyer  to  take  my  place  as  chairman  of  the  Radical 
delegation  and  conduct  the  debate  on  the  Radical 
side.  He  declined.  I  then  went  to  three  or  four 
Congressmen  who  were  members  of  the  Radical 
delegation  and  made  the  same  appeal  to  each  one  of 
them.  All  declined.  I  suspected  at  the  time  that 
apprehension  that  a  vote  for  anybody  else  would  be 
hissed  by  Lincoln's  friends,  had  something  to  do 
with  their  reticence.  I  had  no  such  apprehension. 
I  did  not  believe  there  was  anybody  in  that  conven 
tion  who  would  dare  to  hiss  the  name  of  Grant.  If 
Grant  had  been  a  candidate  before  the  convention 
he  would  have  been  nominated. 

When,  as  chairman  of  my  delegation,  I  pro 
nounced  his  name  as  Missouri's  choice  I  remained 
on  my  feet  for  fully  a  minute  while  a  dead  silence 
prevailed.  Meanwhile  all  eyes  were  turned  upon 
me.  Then  came  a  clap  from  a  single  pair  of  hands, 
being  the  expression  of  a  Missouri  delegate.  Others 
followed,  both  inside  and  outside  of  the  delegation, 


176  The  Abolitionists 

increasing  until  there  was  quite  a  demonstration. 
When  the  clamor  had.  subsided  I  made  the  next 
move  according  to  the  programme  agreed  upon,  and 
the  incident  was  closed. 

And  here  it  can  do  no  harm  to  state  that  General 
Grant  knew  that  he  was  to  receive  the  vote  of  the 
Missouri  Radicals  if  they  were  admitted  to  the  con 
vention — the  newspapers  having  generally  published 
the  fact — and  did  not  decline  the  intended  compli 
ment.     Grant  lived  in  Missouri  for  a  considerable 
period,  married   there,    and   was   on  most   friendly 
terms  with  the  Radical  leaders,  many  of  whom  he 
generously  remembered  when  he  got  to  be  President. 
For  their  action  in  voting  for  Grant,  the  Missouri 
Radical  delegates  were  sharply  criticised  at  the  time, 
on  the  alleged  ground  that  they  secured  admission 
to  the  convention  from  Lincoln's  supporters  by  con 
cealing  the  fact — or  at  least  not  revealing  it — that 
they  intended  to  vote  for  somebody  else.    The  fact, 
however,  is  that  there  was  not  a  person  in  the  con 
vention  who  did  not  from  the  first  understand  where 
they  stood,  and  exactly  what  they  intended  to  do. 
Their   Conservative   contestants   had  distributed  a 
leaflet,  intended  as  an  appeal  to  the  Lincoln  men, 
setting  forth  the  instructions  to  both  delegations. 
Instead  of  the    openly   avowed  opposition   of  the 
Radicals  to  Mr.  Lincoln's  nomination  being  an  im 
pediment  in  their  way,  it  strengthened  them  with 
the  convention,  which,  notwithstanding  its  seeming 
harmony  in  his  support,  contained  many  delegates 
who  would  very  much  have  preferred  nominating 
somebody  else;  but  who,  for  lack  of  organized  oppo 
sition,  were  compelled  to  vote  for  him.    A  sufficient 


Missouri  177 

evidence  of  that  fact  was  the  presence  in  the  con 
vention  of  a  large  number  of  Congressmen  whose 
antagonism  to  the  President  was  notorious.  An 
incident  that  strikingly  illustrated  Congressional  sen 
timent  toward  the  President  at  that  time,  is  given 
in  the  Life  of  Lincoln,  by  Isaac  N.  Arnold,  then  a 
member  of  Congress  from  Illinois.  A  Pennsyl- 
vanian  asked  Thaddeus  Stevens,  the  Republican 
Congressional  leader,  to  introduce  him  to  "a  mem 
ber  of  Congress  who  was  friendly  to  Mr.  Lincoln's 
renomination."  Thereupon  Stevens  took  him  to 
Arnold,  saying:  "Here  is  a  man  who  wants  to  find 
a  Lincoln  member  of  Congress,  and  as  you  are  the 
only  one  I  know  of  I  bring  him  to  you." 

The  same  feeling  largely  prevailed  among  leading 
Republicans  outside  of  Congress.  Henry  J.  Ray 
mond,  of  the  New  York  Times,  in  his  Life  of  Lin 
coln,  says  that  at  that  time  "nearly  all  the  original 
Abolitionists  and  many  of  the  more  decidedly  Anti- 
Slavery  members  of  the  Republican  party  were 
dissatisfied  with  the  President."  More  explicit 
testimony  is  the  statement,  in  his  Political  Recollec 
tions,  of  George  VV.  Julian,  for  many  years  a  leading 
member  of  Congress  from  Indiana.  He  says: 

"  The  nomination  of  Mr.  Lincoln  was  nearly  unani 
mous,  only  the  State  of  Missouri  opposing  him,  but  of 
the  more  earnest  and  thoroughgoing  Republicans  in  both 
Houses  of  Congress,  probably  not  more  than  one  in  ten 
really  favored  it.  It  was  not  only  very  distasteful  to  a 
large  majority  of  Congress,  but  to  many  of  the  more 
prominent  men  of  the  party  throughout  the  country." 

The  writer  had  an  opportunity  of  witnessing  a 


i?8  The  Abolitionists 

peculiar  manifestation  of  the  feeling  that  has  just 
been  spoken  of.  He  attended  a  conference  of  radi 
cal  Anti-Slavery  people  that  was  held  in  a  parlor  of 
one  of  the  old  Pennsylvania  Avenue  hotels  in  Wash 
ington,  a  few  months  before  the  nominating  con 
vention.  A  number  of  well-known  politicians  were 
present,  but  probably  the  most  prominent  was 
Horace  Greeley.  The  writer  had  never  before  seen 
the  great  editor,  and  was  considerably  amused  by 
his  unconventional  independence  on  that  occasion. 
He  occupied  an  easy  chair  with  a  high  back.  Hav 
ing  given  his  views  at  considerable  length,  he 
laid  his  head  back  on  its  support  and  peacefully 
went  to  sleep;  but  the  half-hour  lost  in  slumber 
did  not  prevent  him  from  joining  vigorously  in 
the  discussion  that  was  going  on  as  soon  as  he 
awoke. 

There  seemed  to  be  but  one  sentiment  on  that 
occasion.  All  entertained  the  opinion  that,  owing 
to  Mr.  Lincoln's  peculiar  views  on  reconstruction, 
and  especially  his  manifest  inclination  to  postpone 
actual  freedom  for  the  negro  to  remote  periods,  and 
other  "unhappy  idiosyncrasies,"  as  one  of  the 
speakers  expressed  it,  his  re-election  involved  the 
danger  of  a  compromise  that  would  leave  the  root 
of  slavery  in  the  soil,  and  hence  his  nomination  by 
the  Republicans  should  be  opposed.  Chase  was 
clearly  the  choice  of  those  present,  but  no  one  had 
a  plan  to  propose,  and,  while  some  committees  were 
appointed,  I  never  heard  anything  more  of  the  mat 
ter.  Two  or  three  of  those  present  on  that  occasion 
were  in  the  nominating  convention  and  quietly  voted 
with  the  majority  for  Mr.  Lincoln.  The  writer  was 


Missouri  1 79 

the  only  one  in  both  gatherings  that  maintained  his 
consistency. 

All  this,  it  is  well  enough  to  remember,  was  long 
after  the  President's  Emancipation  Proclamation 
had  appeared. 

There  was,  however,  another  manifestation  of  the 
antagonism  spoken  of  which  the  public,  for  some 
reason,  never  seemed  to  "get  on  to,"  that  at  one 
time  threatened  very  serious  consequences,  and 
which,  if  it  had  gone  a  little  farther,  might  have 
materially  changed  the  history  of  the  country.  That 
was  a  movement,  after  Mr.  Lincoln's  nomination, 
to  compel  him  to  retire  from  the  ticket,  or  to  con 
front  him  with  a  strong  independent  Republican 
candidate.  According  to  Messrs.  Nicolay  and  Hay, 
Mr.  Lincoln's  private  secretaries  and  his  biogra 
phers,  the  movement  started  in  New  York  City 
and  had  its  ramifications  in  many  parts  of  the 
country.  One  meeting  was  held  at  the  residence  of 
David  Dudley  Field,  and  was  attended  by  such  men 
as  George  William  Curtis,  Noyes,  Wilkes,  Opdyke, 
Horace  Greeley,  and  some  twenty-five  others.  In 
the  movement  were  such  prominent  people  as 
Charles  Sumner,  of  Massachusetts,  and  Benjamin 
F.  Wade,  of  Ohio.  One  of  the  men  favorable  to 
the  proposition  was  Governor  Andrew  of  Massa 
chusetts.  "He,"  says  his  biographer,  Peleg  W. 
Chandler,  "was  very  busy  in  the  movement  in  1864 
to  displace  the  President."  "The  secrecy,"  he 
adds,  "with  which  this  branch  of  the  Republican 
politics  of  that  year  has  been  ever  since  enveloped 
is  something  marvelous;  there  were  so  many  con 
cerned  in  it.  When  it  all  comes  out,  if  it  ever  does, 


i8o  The  Abolitionists 

it  will  make  a  curious  page  in  the  history  of  the 
time."  The  signal  for  the  abandonment  of  the 
movement,  according  to  Mr.  Chandler,  was  given 
by  Mr.  Chase. 

Almost  at  the  beginning  of  the  movement  the 
Missouri  Democrat,  doubtless  because  of  its  sup 
posed  opposition  to  Mr.  Lincoln,  was  approached 
on  the  subject.  If  the  statements  made  to  it  were 
anywhere  near  correct,  the  conspiracy,  as  it  might 
be  called,  had  the  countenance  of  a  surprisingly 
great  number  of  weighty  Republicans.  The  Demo 
crat  declined  to  become  a  party  to  the  proposed 
insurrection.  It  held  that  after  what  had  occurred 
in  the  Baltimore  convention,  it  could  not  consist 
ently  and  honorably  do  so. 

There  was  another  reason  why  it  stood  aloof. 
Before  the  nomination  it  was,  naturally  enough, 
looking  out  for  some  one  who  might  be  urged  as  a 
suitable  competitor  for  Mr.  Lincoln's  place.  An 
drew  Johnson,  of  Tennessee,  was  then  quite  popular 
with  a  good  many  people  of  radical  views.  The 
writer  prepared  an  article  discussing  his  availability 
as  presidential  timber  and  suggested  him  as  a  good 
man  for  the  nomination.  The  article  appeared  as  a 
leader  in  the  Democrat,  and  was  followed  by  others 
in  the  same  vein.  The  suggestion  attracted  atten 
tion  and  led  to  a  good  deal  of  newspaper  discussion. 
Herein  we  have,  according  to  the  writer's  opinion, 
the  leading  cause  of  Johnson's  nomination  for  the 
Vice-Presidency.  At  all  events,  he  was  on  the 
ticket  with  Lincoln,  and  the  Democrat  could  not 
very  well  go  back  on  its  own  man. 

The  new  departure,  as  the  proposition  for  another 


Missouri  181 

Republican  candidate  in  case  Mr.  Lincoln  resolved 
to  stick  might  be  called,  that  appeared  so  formid 
able  at  one  time,  faded  away  without  the  public 
knowing  anything  of  its  existence.  The  reason  was 
that  it  had  no  candidate.  It  had  relied  on  Chase, 
knowing  the  unfriendliness  there  was  between  him 
and  the  President,  but  Chase  said  "No,"  and  that 
was  the  end  of  it. 

The  nomination  of  Mr.  Chase  for  the  Chief 
Justiceship  has  always  been  regarded  as  an  act  of 
great  magnanimity  on  Mr.  Lincoln's  part,  as  well 
as  a  clear  perception  of  merit,  it  was  doubtless  all 
that,  but  the  actions  of  the  two  men  at  this  time 
certainly  make  out  a  case  of  striking  coincidence. 
Such  things  rarely  come  by  accident. 

From  what  has  been  stated,  it  will  be  seen  that 
the  Missouri  Radicals  were  by  no  means  alone  in 
their  opposition  to  the  President's  nomination,  for 
which  they  are  so  sharply  taken  to  task  by  some  of 
his  biographers  and  eulogists.  They  had  plenty  of 
company,  the  only  difference  being  that  they  stood 
out  in  the  open  while  the  others  acted  covertly. 

The  Missouri  Germans,  who  mostly  approved  the 
candidature  of  Fremont,  and  some  of  whom  refused 
to  vote  for  Lincoln,  have  been  particularly  assailed. 
Messrs.  Nicolay  and  Hay,  in  their  Lincoln  biog 
raphy,  even  go  so  far  as  to  attack  them  on  the 
ground  of  their  religious,  or  rather  anti-religious, 
beliefs,  calling  them  "materialist  Missourians," 
"Missouri  agnostics,"  etc.,  etc. 

Now,  after  having  lived  among  the  Missouri  Ger 
mans  at  the  time  of  our  civil  troubles,  the  writer  is 
impelled  to  say  a  few  words  in  their  behalf.  He 


1 82  The  Abolitionists 

does  not  hesitate  to  say  that,  in  his  opinion,  there 
was  no  body  of  men  of  equal  numerical  strength  in 
this  country  to  whom,  at  that  crisis,  the  Govern 
ment  and  country  had  cause  to  feel  under  greater 
obligation,  and  justice  would  require  its  acknowledg 
ment  at  this  time.  But  for  them  the  enemies  of  the 
Union  would  have  captured  the  city  of  St.  Louis 
with  its  great  Government  arsenal,  and  with  the 
arms  and  ammunition  thus  secured  would  have 
overrun  both  the  States  of  Missouri  and  Kansas. 
A  large  preponderance  of  the  American-born  citi 
zens  of  St.  Louis  were  Rebels.  The  Union  people 
of  that  city  who  saved  the  day,  were  principally  the 
"Dutch,"  as  they  were  called. 

A  large  army  was  needed  at  that  point  to  protect 
the  Governnment's  interests,  when  it  had  practically 
no  available  forces.  There  was  no  law  under  which 
it  could  be  organized  on  the  spot.  No  man  could 
be  made  to  serve.  No  pay  for  service  was  assured, 
or  even  promised.  The  army,  however,  was  created 
by  the  voluntary  and  patriotic  action  of  its  mem 
bers.  Nearly  a  dozen  full  regiments  were  organized 
and  equipped.  Nine  tenths  of  their  members  were 
Germans.  They  did  not  wait  for  hostilities  to  be 
gin.  Foreseeing  the  emergency  near  at  hand,  they 
organized  into  companies  and  regiments,  and  put 
themselves  on  a  war  footing  before  a  blow  had  been 
struck  or  a  shot  had  been  fired.  They  met  by 
night  to  drill  in  factory  lofts,  in  recreation  halls, 
and  in  whatever  other  places  were  most  available, 
the  words  of  command  being  generally  delivered  in 
German.  The  writer  has  a  lively  recollection  of  the 
difficulties  involved  in  trying  to  learn  military  evo- 


Missouri  183 

lutions  from  instructors  speaking  a  language  he  did 
not  understand. 

Many  of  the  Germans  of  Missouri  had  seen  service 
in  the  Old  World.  They  had  served  under  Sigel  in 
the  struggle  of  1848.  They  found  themselves  under 
Sigel  again.  It  was  with  the  step  and  bearing  of 
veterans  that  they  marched  (the  writer  was  an  eye 
witness)  in  May  of  1861,  only  a  few  days  after 
Sumter  had  been  fired  on,  to  open  the  mili 
tary  ball  in  the  West  at  Camp  Jackson,  near  St. 
Louis. 

The  same  people  went  with  Lyon  to  the  State 
capital,  from  which  the  Rebel  officials  were  driven, 
never  to  return.  They  were  with  Lyon  at  Wilson's 
Creek,  and  with  him  many  of  them  laid  down  their 
lives  on  that  bloody  field.  They  were  wherever 
hard  fighting  was  to  be  done  in  that  part  of  the 
country.  The  writer  believes  he  is  correct  in  say 
ing  they  furnished  more  men  to  the  Government's 
service  than  any  other  numerically  equal  body  of 
citizens.  So  large  was  their  representation  in  the 
Union's  forces  in  that  region,  that  the  Rebels  were 
accustomed  to  speak  of  the  Union  soldiers  as  "the 
Dutch." 

The  fact  that  the  Germans  were  fighting  for  an 
adopted  government  makes  their  loyalty  more  con 
spicuous.  What  they  did  was  not  from  a  love  of 
war,  but  because  they  were  Abolitionists.  They 
were  opposed  to  slavery.  They  owned  no  slaves. 
They  wanted  the  Government  sustained,  because 
they  believed  that  meant  the  end  of  slaveholding. 
They  supported  Fremont  largely  because  of  his 
freedom  proclamation. 


1 84  The  Abolitionists 

And  here  the  writer,  before  closing  his  work, 
wants  to  say  something  about  Fremont.  He  be 
lieves  no  man  in  this  country  was  made  the  victim 
of  greater  injustice  than  he  was. 

It  has  always  been  the  opinion  of  the  writer  that, 
if  Fremont  had  been  permitted  to  take  his  own  way 
in  his  Western  command  a  little  longer,  he  would 
have  achieved  a  brilliant  military  success.  He  was 
a  weak  man  in  some  respects,  being  over  fond  of 
dress  parade.  The  financial  management  of  his 
department  was  bad,  or,  rather,  very  careless.  Of 
these  shortcomings,  which  were  considerably  mis 
represented  and  exaggerated,  Fremont's  enemies 
took  advantage,  and  succeeded  in  effecting  his  over 
throw  in  the  Western  Department.  But,  notwith 
standing  his  admitted  failings,  he  gave  evidence  of 
military  ability.  He  showed  that  he  possessed  both 
physical  and  moial  courage,  and  he  knew  how  to 
plan  a  campaign.  He  undoubtedly  formulated  the 
movement  that  resulted  in  the  capture  of  Forts 
Donelson  and  Henry  in  Tennessee,  taking  the 
initial  steps,  but  of  which  Halleck  got  the  credit. 
He  was  removed  from  command  when  in  the  field, 
and  almost  on  the  eve  of  battle.  He  had  an  enthu 
siastic  army  and  the  prospect  of  a  decisive  victory. 
His  recall  gave  up  nearly  the  whole  of  Missouri  to 
the  enemy,  and  was  one  of  the  causes  of  complaint 
that  the  Missouri  Unionists  had  against  the  National 
Administration. 

Not  long  afterwards,  with  no  more  than  even 
chances,  Fremont  defeated  Stonewall  Jackson  in 
Virginia — at  Cross  Keys — which  was  more  than  any 
of  the  other  Union  generals  then  in  that  department 


Missouri  185 

could  do.  His  prompt  removal  made  it  sure  that 
he  should  not  do  it  again. 

It  was  the  misfortune  of  Fremont  that  his  inde 
pendence  caused  him  to  clash  with  selfish  interests, 
and  he  was  sacrificed.  He  was  selected  for  the 
Trans-Mississippi  command  by  the  Blairs,  evidently 
with  the  expectation  that  he  would  bend  to  their 
wishes.  He  soon  showed  that  he  was  his  own 
master,  and  the  trouble  began.  The  Union  peo 
ple  of  his  department  were  mostly  with  him,  but 
the  Blairs  had  control  of  the  administration  in 
Washington. 

As  for  his  freedom  proclamation,  it  was,  to  a  cer 
tain  extent,  an  act  of  insubordination,  but  it  was 
right  in  principle  and  sound  in  policy.  Its  adoption 
by  the  General  Government  would  have  saved  four 
years  of  contention  and  turmoil  in  Missouri,  spent 
in  upholding  a  tottering  institution  that  was  doomed 
from  the  first  shot  of  the  Rebellion.  The  President, 
however,  for  reasons  elsewhere  explained,  did  not 
at  that  time  want  slavery  interfered  with. 

The  story  of  Fremont's  fall  is  best  told  by  Whit- 
tier  in  four  lines: 

"  Thy  error,  Fremont,  simply  was  to  act 
A  brave  man's  part  without  the  statesman's  tact, 
And,  taking  counsel  but  of  common-sense, 
To  strike  at  cause  as  well  as  consequence." 


CHAPTER  XXII 

SOME  ABOLITION  LEADERS 

THE  references  that  have  been  made  to  General 
Frank  P.  Blair  of  Missouri  have  not  been 
complimentary  to  that  individual.  They  would 
indicate  on  the  part  of  the  writer  no  very  exalted 
admiration  for  or  estimate  of  the  man.  In  that 
particular  they  are  not  altogether  just.  The  stormy 
period  of  the  Rebellion  brought  out  few  more  pic 
turesque  figures  than  his,  or  in  some  respects  more 
admirable  characters.  There  is  no  question  that, 
but  for  the  efforts  of  Blair,  the  Rebels  would  have 
effected  the  capture  of  St.  Louis  at  the  beginning 
of  the  war,  to  be  followed  by  the  at  least  temporary 
control  of  the  entire  State  of  Missouri,  and  possibly 
of  Kansas  as  well.  To  that  end  preparations  had 
been  carefully  and  skillfully  made.  The  leader  in 
the  movement  was  none  other  than  Missouri's  Gov 
ernor,  Claiborne  F.  Jackson,  who  was  justly  looked 
upon  as  one  of  the  most  consummate  and  accom 
plished  schemers  of  the  time.  He  was  a  Rebel  from 
head  to  foot.  He  had  taken  office  with  the  de 
liberate  purpose  of  swinging  his  State  into  the  Con 
federate  column,  and  without  regard  to  the  wishes  of 
the  majority  of  the  people  whom  he  officially  repre 
sented.  He  was  supported  by  a  sympathetic  corps 

186 


Some  Abolition  Leaders          187 

of  official  assistants,  including  a  majority  of  the 
Legislature  of  his  State,  who  gave  him  whatever 
legislation  he  wanted.  Every  advantage  seemed  to 
be  on  his  side.  He  would  undoubtedly  have  suc 
ceeded  but  for  the  opposition  of  Blair.  In  him  he 
encountered  an  equal  in  cunning,  and  more  than  a 
match  in  courage  and  energy. 

When  the  Governor  and  his  helpers  were  busy 
raising  an  army  pursuant  to  the  conditions  of  a  law 
that  had  been  enacted  for  the  purpose,  and  which 
hampered  their  operations,  Blair  went  ahead  in  rais 
ing  and  equipping  an  army  on  the  other  side  with 
out  the  slightest  regard  to  law.  The  presence  or 
absence  of  a  statute  did  not  trouble  him  in  the  least. 
He  called  on  the  Unionists  to  organize  and  arm,  and 
when  a  sufficient  force,  composed  in  greater  part  of 
loyal  Germans,  had  responded  he  struck  the  first 
blow.  In  a  legal  aspect  the  whole  proceeding  was 
irregular,  but  it  was  none  the  less  effective. 

When  the  Governor's  army  was  quietly  encamped 
on  the  outskirts  of  St.  Louis,  for  the  capture  and 
occupancy  of  which  it  was  getting  ready,  it  found 
itself  unexpectedly  surrounded  by  a  superior  force, 
and  its  surrender  was  demanded  in  a  way  that  ad 
mitted  of  no  denial.  The  writer  was  present  on  the 
occasion.  From  a  convenient  eminence  he  witnessed 
the  whole  proceeding.  When  Jackson's  men — the 
rendezvous  had  in  honor  of  his  Excellency  the  Gov 
ernor  been  named  Camp  Jackson — were  enjoying 
themselves  on  a  pleasant  summer's  day,  sleeping 
on  the  grass,  playing  cards,  or  escorting  their  lady 
friends  and  other  visitors  about  the  grounds, 
suddenly  they  realized  that  their  position  was 


i88  The  Abolitionists 

commanded  by  hostile  guns.  Pointing  downward 
from  higher  ground  not  far  off  were  nearly  a  score 
of  frowning  cannons,  behind  which  stood  men  with 
burning  fuses.  I  had  watched  the  Union  forces  as 
they  approached.  At  the  foot  of  the  hill  that  hid 
them  from  the  camp  they  paused  for  a  few  moments, 
and  then  up  the  hill  went  the  horses  that  were  drag 
ging  the  cannons  at  a  run.  They  were  wheeled 
when  the  summit  was  reached,  and  the  guns  thrown 
into  position.  Everything  was  ready  for  action. 
At  the  same  time  large  bodies  of  armed  men,  their 
arms  glittering  in  the  sunlight,  were  seen  approach 
ing  from  all  sides  on  the  double  quick.  The  Rebels 
were  completely  entrapped,  and  their  immediate 
capitulation  was  a  thing  of  course.  The  credit  for 
the  manoeuvres  of  the  day  was  given  to  Captain — 
afterwards  General — Nathaniel  Lyon,  who  was  in 
immediate  command  of  the  Unionists,  but  every 
body  understood  that  the  real  leader,  as  well  as  in 
stigator,  of  the  movement  was  Blair. 

Blair  had  been  the  admitted  leader  of  the  Missouri 
Abolitionists.  He  was  as  radical  as  any  man  among 
them.  One  day  he  stopped  me  on  the  street  for  the 
purpose  of  thanking  me  for  a  paper  I  had  con 
tributed  to  the  Missouri  Democrat,  in  which  I  had 
favored  what  was  practically  immediate  emancipa 
tion  in  Missouri.  He  said  that  was  the  right  kind 
of  talk,  and  what  we  had  to  come  to.  I  felt  greatly 
flattered,  because  there  was  nothing  in  the  article 
that  disclosed  its  authorship,  and  Mr.  Blair  had 
taken  the  trouble  to  inquire  about  it. 

Blair  turned  against  the  Missouri  Abolitionists 
when  a  decided  majority  of  them  turned  against 


Some  Abolition  Leaders          189 

him  in  his  quarrel  with  Fremont.  They  indorsed 
Fremont's  emancipation  proclamation,  which  the 
President,  at  Blair's  instigation,  it  was  charged  at 
the  time,  revoked. 

Blair  was  a  man  not  only  of  strong  ambition  but 
of  arbitrary  temperament.  He  could  not  tolerate 
the  idea  of  a  newcomer  pre-empting  what  he  had 
considered  his  premises.  If  he  could  not  rule  he 
was  ready  to  ruin.  That  disposition  accorded  with 
both  his  mental  and  physical  make-up.  Bodily  he 
was  a  bundle  of  bones  and  nerves  without  a  particle 
of  surplus  flesh.  His  hair  was  red,  his  complexion 
was  sandy,  and  his  eyes,  when  he  was  excited  and 
angry,  had  a  baleful  expression  that  led  some  one 
in  my  presence  on  a  certain  occasion  to  speak  of 
them  as  "brush-heaps  afire." 

He  was  not  an  eloquent  man,  although  a  ready 
and  frequent  public  speaker.  His  voice  was  not 
musical.  His  strong  forte  was  invective.  He  was 
nearly  always  denouncing  somebody.  Apparently, 
he  was  never  so  happy  as  when  making  another 
miserable.  Sometimes  his  personal  allusions  were 
very  broad.  He  was  accustomed  in  his  speeches  to 
refer  to  one  of  Missouri's  United  States  Senators  as 
"that  lop-eared  vulgarian."  That  he  was  not  al 
most  all  the  time  in  personal  difficulties  was  due  to 
the  fact  that  he  was  known  to  be  a  man  of  excep 
tional  courage.  He  was  a  born  fighter.  Physically 
I  think  he  was  the  bravest  man  I  ever  knew.  I 
witnessed  several  manifestations  of  his  fearlessness, 
but  one  particularly  impressed  me. 

I  have  spoken  of  the  Camp  Jackson  affair.  Al 
though  the  people  in  the  Rebel  encampment  surren- 


190  The  Abolitionists 

dered  without  a  blow,  the  incident  was  attended 
with  considerable  bloodshed.    A  mob  of  Rebel  sym 
pathizers,  consisting  largely  of  half-grown  boys — I 
was  in  the  midst  of  the  throng  at  the  time — with 
their  pistols  opened  fire  on  a  German  Union  regi 
ment  and  killed  several  of  its  men.     The  troops,  in 
return,  poured  a  volley  into  the  crowd  of  spectators 
from  which  the  shots  had  come,  killing  or  wounding 
over  forty  persons,  the  most  of  them,  as  is  usual  in 
such  cases,   being  inoffensive  onlookers.      A  man 
standing  beside  me  and,  like  myself,  a  spectator, 
had  the  top  of  one  ear  clipped  off  by  a  Minid  ball  as 
cleanly  as  if  it  had  been  done  with  a  knife.     I  found 
when,  soon  afterwards,  I  reached  the  business  center 
of  the  city,  where  the  Rebel  element  then  largely 
predominated,  that  the  story   of  the  tragedy  had 
swelled  the  number  of  the  victims  to  one  thousand. 
Intense  excitement  and  the  most  furious  indignation 
prevailed.     Hundreds  of  men,  with  flaming  faces, 
were  swearing  the  most  dreadful  oaths  that  they 
would  shoot  Frank  Blair,  whom  they  seemed  to  re 
gard  as  wholly  responsible,  on  sight.     Many  of  them 
were   flourishing   pistols   in   confirmation    of   thc>ir 
bloody  purpose.     Just  then  the   attention   of  the 
crowd  was  drawn  to  an  unusual  spectacle.     Down 
Fourth  Street,  which  was  then  the  leading  business 
avenue  of  St.  Louis,  and  at  that  time  densely  packed 
with  the  excited  people,  came  the  Union  soldiers 
with  the  prisoners  from  Camp  Jackson  on  their  way 
to  the  United  States  Arsenal  grounds.     At  the  head 
of  the  procession  marched  the  men  of  the  First  Mis 
souri  volunteer  regiment,  their  guns  "aport"  and 
ready  for  immediate  service,  and  at  their  head — the 


Some  Abolition  Leaders          19* 

only  mounted  man  in  the  regiment,  according  to 
my  recollection — rode  their  Colonel,  who  was  Frank 
Blair.  He  was  in  full  uniform,  which  made  him 
still  more  conspicuous.  No  better  target  could 
have  been  offered.  I  watched  the  audacious  man, 
expecting  to  hear  a  shot  at  any  moment  from  the 
sidewalk,  or  from  a  window  of  one  of  the  high  build 
ings  lining  the  street,  and  to  see  him  topple  from 
his  saddle.  He  understood  very  well  the  danger  he 
was  braving.  He  knew  that  in  that  throng,  where 
everybody  was  armed,  there  were  hundreds  toying 
with  the  triggers  of  their  guns,  and  trying  to  muster 
sufficient  courage  to  shoot  him  down.  Slowly,  and 
as  calmly  as  if  on  ordinary  dress  parade,  he  led  the 
way  until  he  passed  out  of  sight.  I  thought  then, 
and  still  think,  it  was  the  pluckiest  thing  I  ever 
witnessed. 

The  effect  of  the  breaking  up  and  capture  of  Camp 
Jackson  was  something  wonderful.  Up  to  that  time, 
the  Rebels  of  St.  Louis  and  their  sympathizers  had 
been  very  demonstrative.  In  portions  of  the  city 
the  Rebel  cockade,  which  was  a  red  rosette  pinned 
to  the  side  of  the  hat,  was  conspicuous,  and  any  one 
not  displaying  that  decoration  was  in  danger  of 
having  his  hat  smashed  upon  his  head.  After  Camp 
Jackson's  surrender,  I  never  saw  a  Rebel  cockade 
openly  worn  in  St.  Louis. 

At  the  same  time  there  was  an  extensive  shifting 
of  positions.  A  good  many  men  of  prominence  and 
wealth,  who  had  been  leaning  over  towards  the 
South,  suddenly  straightened  up,  and  not  a  few  of 
them  showed  a  strong  inclination  the  other  way. 
Some  of  the  evolutions  they  executed  were  amusing. 


i92  The  Abolitionists 

One  of  the  first  to  discuss  with  the  writer  the  Union 
defeat  at  Bull  Run  was  a  former  United  States 
Government  official.  He  was  tremendously  excited 
and  correspondingly  exultant.  After  describing  how 
the  Southerners  had  vanquished  the  Government's 
men,  and  particularly  how  the  South  Carolina 
"black  horse"  had  ridden  them  down  in  deadly 
slaughter,  he  cried  out,  "That  's  the  way  we  will 
give  it  to  you  fellows  all  the  time." 

Not  very  long  afterwards  General  Grant,  having 
entered  Tennessee,  and  captured  Fort  Donelson, 
and  many  prisoners,  was  about  to  visit  St.  Louis, 
and  the  leading  Unionists  there  decided  to  give  him 
a  grand  reception  and  an  elaborate  dinner.  Money 
had  to  be  raised,  and  among  those  I  met  who  were 
soliciting  it  was  my  ex-Government-official  friend. 
He  was  fully  as  happy  as  he  had  been  before,  when 
the  Fort  Donelson  affair  was  alluded  to.  "Did  n't 
we  give  it  to  those  fellows  down  there?"  he  ex 
claimed. 

Out  in  western  Missouri  was  a  young  lawyer  of 
great  ambition  and  considerable  promise.  He  was 
afterwards  a  member  of  Congress.  Like  a  good 
many  others  he  was  at  first  puzzled  to  know  what 
course  to  take.  In  his  dilemma  he  concluded  to 
consult  an  old  politician  in  that  section  who  was 
much  famed  for  his  sagacity,  and  who  bore  the 
military  title  of  General. 

"If  you  contemplate  remaining  in  Missouri,"  said 
the  older  man  to  the  junior,  "you  should  take  the 
Southern  side.  Missouri  is  a  slave  State  and  a 
Southern  State,  and  she  will  naturally  go  with  her 
section." 


Some  Abolition  Leaders          193 

The  young  man  availed  himself  of  an  opportunity 
to  make  a  public  address,  in  which  he  aligned  him 
self  in  the  strongest  terms  with  those  who  had  gone 
into  rebellion.  But  scarcely  had  this  been  done 
when  Lincoln  issued  his  first  call  for  troops,  and 
among  those  nominated  to  command  them  was  the 
old  Missouri  General,  It  was  announced  that  he 
had  accepted  the  appointment.  The  younger  man 
was  amazed.  He  went  in  hot  haste  for  an  explana 
tion. 

"It  's  all  true,"  said  the  General.  "The  fact  is, 
when  I  talked  with  you  before,  I  did  not  think  the 
Northern  people  would  fight  for  the  Union,  but  I 
now  see  that  I  was  mistaken ;  and  when  the  North 
ern  people,  being  the  stronger  and  richer,  do  decide 
to  go  to  war,  they  are  almost  certain  to  win.  You 
had  better  take  the  Northern  side." 

1 '  But  it  is  too  late, ' '  said^the  youngster.  ' '  I  have 
committed  myself  in  that  speech  I  made." 

"Oh!  as  for  that  matter,"  was  the  reply,  "it  's 
of  very  little  consequence  if  you  have  committed 
yourself.  It  's  easy  to  make  a  speech  on  the  other 
side  and  take  the  first  one  back.  Nobody  looks  for 
consistency  in  times  like  these." 

Many  Missourians,  as  well  as  many  citizens  of 
other  border  slave  States,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
trouble  advocated  a  policy  of  neutrality.  They  saw 
no  necessity  for  taking  sides.  I  was  at  a  meeting 
out  in  the  interior  of  Missouri,  where  many  citizens 
had  come  together  to  consult  as  to  the  policy  they 
had  better  pursue.  Among  them  was  an  old  gentle 
man  who  seemed  to  be  looked  upon  by  his  neighbors 

as  a  regular  Nestor.     He  was  called  upon  for  his 
n 


194  The  Abolitionists 

views.  "Gentlemen,"  said  he,  "we  have  got  to 
take  sides  and  maintain  our  neutrality." 

In  that  section  of  the  country  was  another  distin 
guished  and  unique  personage  who  conspicuously 
figured  in  the  events  that  are  here  being  dealt  with. 

I  knew  him  intimately.  I  now  refer  to  James  H. 
Lane,  who  was  better  known  as  "Jim  Lane,"  of 
Kansas.  Like  Blair,  Lane  was  a  born  leader  of 
men,  and  a  leader  under  exceptional  conditions. 
He  was  generally  credited  with  being  a  fighter — a 
dare-devil,  in  fact — and  a  desperado;  but  in  the 
writer's  opinion  he  was  by  no  means  Blair's  equal 
in  personal  courage.  He  had  a  great  deal  to  do  in 
raising  troops  and  organizing  military  movements, 
but  he  did  not  go  to  the  front.  His  fighting  was 
chiefly  in  "private  scraps,"  in  one  of  which  he  killed 
his  adversary. 

His  paramount  ability  was  as  a  talker  rather  than 
as  a  fighter.  He  was  an  orator,  and  his  oratory  was 
of  a  kind  that  was  exactly  suited  to  his  surround 
ings.  No  man  could  more  readily  adapt  himself  to 
the  humor  of  his  hearers.  He  knew  precisely  how 
to  put  himself  on  their  level.  I  have  seen  him  face 
an  audience  that  was  distinctly  unfriendly,  that 
would  scarcely  give  him  a  hearing;  and  in  less  than 
half  an  hour  every  man  in  the  crowd  would  be 
shouting  his  approval.  He  could  go  to  his  hearers 
if  he  could  not  bring  them  to  him.  I  witnessed  one 
of  his  performances  in  that  line. 

He  was  a  candidate  for  re-election  to  the  United 
States  Senate.  There  was  one  rival  that  he  particu 
larly  feared.  The  man  was  the  late  General  Thomas 
Ewing,  then  a  resident  of  Kansas.  At  that  particu- 


Some  Abolition  Leaders          195 

lar  time  he  was  in  the  Army  and  the  commandant  of 
the  St.  Louis  District  in  Missouri.  Lane  came  to 
St.  Louis  and  had  a  talk  with  the  writer,  freely  ad 
mitting  his  dread  of  Ewing  and  asking  for  the  Mis- 
souri  Democrat 's  support.  Having  a  considerable 
admiration  for  Lane  as  well  as  a  liking  for  the  man, 
I  promised  him  such  assistance  as  I  could  reason 
ably  give.  It  happened  to  be  at  the  time  when 
General  Sterling  Price,  in  making  his  last  raid  into 
Missouri,  was  threatening  St.  Louis  with  an  army 
of  nearly  twenty  thousand  men,  and  there  was  no  ad 
equate  opposing  force  at  hand.  Ewing,  with  barely 
a  tenth  as  many  troops,  went  to  the  front  and  he 
roically  engaged  the  enemy.  With  no  protection 
but  the  walls  of  a  little  mud  fort  he  succeeded  in 
repelling  the  attack  of  his  powerful  adversary.  That 
timely  action  probably  saved  St.  Louis. 

At  this  particular  time  it  was  arranged  that  there 
should  be  a  meeting  of  the  Republicans  of  St.  Louis 
— it  was  in  the  midst  of  an  exciting  presidential 
campaign — at  which  Lane  was  to  be  the  principal 
speaker.  The  meeting  was  held  and  Lane  was 
addressing  a  large  audience  with  great  acceptance 
when  the  news  of  Ewing's  achievement  was  received. 

It  was  then  customary,  when  war  intelligence 
arrived  in  the  course  of  any  political  gathering,  and 
sometimes  of  religious  gatherings,  to  suspend  all 
other  proceedings  until  it  had  been  announced  and 
the  audience  had  time  enough  to  manifest  its  feeling 
on  the  subject. 

Lane  was  in  the  midst  of  an  eloquent  passage 
when  he  was  interrupted  by  the  arrival  of  the  news 
referred  to.  He  stepped  back,  and  the  news-bearer, 


196  The  Abolitionists 

taking  his  place,  proceeded  to  give  a  graphic  de 
scription  of  Ewing's  performance,  concluding  with  a 
glowing  eulogy  on  that  personage,  and  which  was 
received  with  tremendous  cheering.  Understand 
ing  Lane's  feelings  towards  Ewing,  I  watched  his 
face  while  these  events  were  passing.  It  plainly 
showed  his  vexation.  It  was  almost  livid  with  sup 
pressed  emotion.  But  the  time  for  him  to  resume 
his  address  had  come.  What  would  he  do  was 
the  question  I  asked  myself.  lie  answered  it  very 
promptly.  Jauntily  stepping  forward  with  his 
countenance  fairly  wreathed  in  smiles,  he  exclaimed, 
''Ladies  and  gentlemen,  that  is  glo-o-orious  news 
for  us,  but  it  's  ter-r-r-ible  for  the  other  fellows." 

Lane's  enemies  were  confident  they  had  him 
beaten  as  a  candidate  for  the  Senate.  He  had  done 
certain  things  that  rendered  him  unpopular  with  his 
constituents.  So  certain  were  they  that  they  did 
not  think  it  necessary  to  make  an  effort,  and,  in 
conse  -once,  remained  inactive.  Not  so  with  Lane. 
He  quietly  waited  until  a  few  days  before  the  choos 
ing  of  the  Legislature  that  was  to  decide  on  his  case, 
and  then  he  entered  on  a  lightning  canvass.  Ar 
ranging  for  relays  of  fast  horses — it  was  before  the 
days  of  railroads  in  Kansas — he  began  a  tour  that 
would  bring  him  practically  face  to  face  with  every 
voter  in  the  State.  He  traveled  and  spoke  both 
by  day  and  by  night.  Sometimes  he  addressed  as 
many  as  a  dozen  audiences  in  twenty-four  hours. 
The  excitement  attending  his  progress  was  great. 
Men  came  many  miles  to  hear  him,  sometimes 
bringing  their  families  with  them.  He  succeeded  in 
completely  revolutionizing  public  opinion.  It  was 


Some  Abolition  Leaders          197 

too  late  for  his  adversaries  to  attempt  a  counter- 
movement,  and  the  result  was  that  Lane  was  re- 
elected  by  an  almost  unanimous  vote. 

There  was  no  doubt  about  Lane's  attitude  on 
the  slavery  question.  He  was  not  only  a  radical 
Abolitionist,  but  the  acknowledged  leader  of  the 
Free-State  men  of  Kansas.  He  recognized  no  right 
of  property  in  man,  as  many  Missouri  slaveholders 
learned  to  their  sorrow.  I  was  present  when  he 
congratulated  a  Kansas  regiment  that  had  just  re 
turned  from  a  raid  into  Missouri,  bringing  many 
black  people  with  it.  ' 4  Fellow  soldiers, ' '  he  shouted, 
"you  entered  Missouri  a  white  body,  but  you  have 
returned  surrounded  by  a  great  black  cloud.  It  is 
the  work  of  the  Lord." 

There  was  another  man  whose  name,  the  author 
thinks,  properly  belongs  under  the  heading  of  this 
chapter,  and  to  whom,  on  account  of  pleasant  per 
sonal  recollections,  he  would  like  to  refer.  He  was 
not  a  fighter  like  Blair  and  Lane,  with  whom  his  life 
was  in  striking  contrast.  He  was  essentially  a  man 
of  peace.  He  was  a  Quaker.  Although  born  in 
Kentucky  he  was  an  Abolitionist.  I  now  refer  to 
Levi  Coffin  of  Cincinnati,  who  was  credited  with 
successfully  assisting  over  three  thousand  runaway 
slaves  on  their  way  to  freedom,  and,  in  consequence, 
became  distinguished  among  both  friends  and  foes 
as  the  "President  of 'The  Underground  Railroad.'  " 
The  most  remarkable  thing  in  his  case  was  his  im 
munity  from  legal  punishment.  The  slaveholders 
knew  very  well  what  he  was  doing,  but  so  expert 
was  he  in  hiding  his  tracks  that  they  could  never  get 
their  clutches  upon  him. 


198  The  Abolitionists 

I  had  rather  an  amusing  experience  with  Coffin. 
Having  when  a  boy  heard  so  much  about  him,  I 
was  anxious  to  see  him  and  make  his  acquaintance. 
On  the  occasion  of  a  visit  to  Cincinnati,  with  a  letter 
of  introduction  from  an  acquaintance  of  Coffin,  I 
went  to  his  office,  but  not  without  trepidation.     I 
found  the  great  man  engaged  in  a  conversation  with 
some  one,  his  back  being  toward  me,  as  I  took  my 
stand  just  inside  of  his  door.     How  he  became  aware 
of  my  presence  I  don't  know— I  certainly  made  no 
noise  to  attract  him — but  he  certainly  knew  I  was 
there.     Suspending  the   conversation  in  which  he 
was  engaged — he  was  seated  in  a  revolving  chair- 
he  suddenly  turned  so  as  to  confront  me,  and  silently 
looked  me  over.     At  last  he  arose,  and,  stepping 
up  to  me,  lifted  my  hat  with  one  hand,  and  laid  the 
other  upon  my  head.     I  understood  very  well  what 
his  movements  meant.     He  was  looking  for  outward 
evidences  of  negro  blood.     So  far  as  my  complexion 
went  a  suspicion  of  African  taint  might  very  well 
have  been  entertained.     I   had   been   assisting  my 
father  in  harvesting  his  wheat  crop,  and  my   face 
and  hands  had  a  heavy  coating  of  tan,  but  my  hair 
was  straight   and   stiff.     I   could  see  that  the  old 
gentleman  was  puzzled.     Not  a  word,  so  far,  had 
been  spoken  on  either  side. 

"Where  is  thee  from?"  was  the  question  that 
broke  the  silence. 

I  answered  that  I  was  from  Clark  County,  mean 
ing  Clark  County,  Ohio. 

Coffin,  however,  evidently  thought  I  referred  to 
Clark  County,  Kentucky,  from  which  there  had  been 
many  fugitives,  and  that  settled  the  matter  in  b  is  mind. 


Some  Abolition  Leaders          199 

"But,  my  boy,  thee  seems  to  have  had  a  good 
home,"  continued  the  old  gentleman  as  he  looked 
over  my  clothes  and  general  appearance.  "Why  is 
thee  running  away?" 

Then  came  the  explanation  and  the  solemn  Quaker 
indulged  in  a  hearty  laugh.  He  remarked  that  he 
knew  my  family  very  well  by  reputation,  and  that 
he  had  met  my  father  in  Abolitionist  conventions 
— meetings  he  called  them. 

Then  he  invited  me  to  go  to  his  home  and  break 
bread  with  him.  I  vainly  tried  to  decline.  The 
old  man  would  accept  no  excuse. 

"Thy  father  would  not  refuse  my  hospitality." 

That  settled  the  matter,  and  I  accompanied  my 
entertainer  to  his  domicile.  I  was  glad  that  I  did 
so,  as  it  gave  me  the  opportunity  to  see  and  greet 
Coffin's  wife,  who  was  a  charming  elderly  Quaker 
lady.  She  had  gained  a  reputation  as  a  helper  of 
the  slave  almost  equal  to  that  of  her  husband. 

When  runaways  set  out  on  their  venturesome 
journeys,  they  were  generally  very  indifferently 
equipped.  Ordinarily  they  had  only  the  working 
garments  they  wore  on  the  plantations,  and  these 
furnished  but  slight  relief  for  a  condition  very  near 
to  nudity.  Mrs.  Coffin  set  apart  a  working  room 
in  her  house,  and  there  sympathizers  of  both  races 
joined  her  in  garment-making,  the  result  being  that 
very  few  fugitives  left  Cincinnati  without  being  de 
cently  clothed. 

At  the  Coffin  table  were  several  guests  beside 
myself.  One  was  a  colored  man.  He  had  been  a 
slave,  I  learned,  but  his  freedom  had  been  pur- 
chased,  largely  through  the  Coffins'  efforts. 


200  The  Abolitionists 

After  I  left  the  Coffin  mansion,  I  remembered 
my  unused  letter  of  introduction,  which  I  had 
altogether  forgotten.  It  was  no  longer  called  for. 


CHAPTER  XXIII 

ROLLS   OF  HONOR 

THE  first  honors  of  Abolitionism  unquestionably 
belong  to  the  organizers  of  the  first  societies 
formed  for  its  promotion.  The  first  of  these  in  the 
order  of  time  was  the  New  England  Anti-Slavery 
Society,  which  came  into  being  on  the  first  day  of 
January,  1832.  William  Lloyd  Garrison  was  chief 
promoter  and  master  spirit.  It  consisted  at  the  out 
set  of  twelve  men,  and  that  was  not  the  only  evidence 
of  its  apostolic  mission.  It  was  to  be  the  forerunner 
in  an  ever-memorable  revolution.  The  names  of 
the  twelve  subscribers  to  its  declaration  of  views 
and  aims  will  always  have  a  place  in  American  his 
tory.  They  were  William  Lloyd  Garrison,  Oliver 
Johnson,  William  J.  Snelling,  John  E.  Fuller,  Moses 
Thatcher,  Stillman  E.  Newcomb,  Arnold  Buffum, 
John  B.  Hall,  Joshua  Coffin,  Isaac  Knapp,  Henry 
K.  Stockton,  and  Benjamin  C.  Bacon. 

As  a  suggestion  from,  rf  not  an  offshoot  of,  the 
New  England  organization,  came  the  National  Anti- 
Slavery  Society,  which  was  organized  in  Philadel 
phia  in  1834.  It  was  intended  that  the  meeting  of 
its  promoters  should  be  held  in  New  York,  but  so 
intense  was  the  feeling  against  the  Abolitionists  in 
that  city  that  no  suitable  room  could  there  be 

201 


202  The  Abolitionists 

found,  and  the  "conspirators,"  as  they  were  called 
by  their  enemies,  were  compelled  to  seek  for  accom 
modation  and  protection  among  the  Philadelphia 
Quakers. 

In  that  circumstance  there  was  considerable  sig 
nificance.  Two  great  declarations  of  independence 
have  issued  from  Philadelphia.  One  was  for  po 
litical  freedom ;  the  other  was  for  personal  freedom. 
One  was  for  the  benefit  of  its  authors  as  well  as  of 
others.  The  other  one  was  wholly  unselfish.  Which 
had  the  loftier  motive? 

Ten  States  were  represented  in  the  Philadelphia 
meeting,  which,  considering  the  difficulties  incident 
to  travel  at  that  time,  was  a  very  creditable  showing. 
One  man  rode  six  hundred  miles  on  horseback  to 
attend  it. 

The  following  is  the  list  of  those  in  attendance, 
who  became  subscribers  to  the  declaration  that  was 
promulgated: 

Maine 

David  Thurston,  Nathan  Winslow,  Joseph  South- 
wick,  James  F.  Otis,  Isaac  Winslow. 

New  Hampshire 
David  Campbell. 

Massachusetts 

/ 

Daniel  Southmayd,  Effingham  C.  Capron,  Amos 
Phelps,  John  G.  Whittier,  Horace  P.  Wakefield, 
James  Barbadoes,  David  T.  Kimball,  Jr.,  Daniel 
E.  Jewitt,  John  R.  Campbell,  Nathaniel  Southard, 
Arnold  Buffum,  William  Lloyd  Garrison.  -' 


Rolls  of  Honor  203 

Rhode  Island 

John  Prentice,  George  W.  Benson. 
Connecticut 

Samuel  J.  May,  Alpheus  Kingsley,  Edwin  A. 
Stillman,  Simeon  Joselyn,  Robert  B.  Hall. 

New  York 

/ 

Beriah  Green,  Lewis  Tappan,  John  Rankin,  Wil 
liam  Green,  Jr.,  Abram  T.  Cox,  William^oodell, 
Elizur  /Wright,  Jr.,  Charles  W.  Denison,  John 
Frost. 

New  Jersey 

Jonathan  Parkhurst,  Chalkly  Gillinghamm,  John 
McCullough,  James  White. 

Pennsylvania 
/ 

Evan  Lewis,  Edwin  A.  Altee,  Robert  Purviss, 
James  McCrummill,  Thomas  Shipley,  Bartholomew 
Fussell,  David  Jones,  Enoch  Mace, -John  McKim, 
Anson  Vickers,  Joseph  Loughead,  Edward  P.  Altee, 
Thomas  Whitson,  John  R.  Sleeper,  John  Sharp,  Jr., 
James  ^ott. 

Ohio 

Milton  Sutliff,  Levi  Sutliff,  John  M.  Sterling. 

The  writer  finds  it  quite  impossible  to  carry  out 
the  idea  with  which  this  chapter  was  begun,  which 
was  to  furnish  a  catalogue  embracing  all  active  Anti- 
Slavery  workers  who  were  Abolitionists.  Space 


204  The  Abolitionists 

does  not  permit.  He  will  therefore  condense  by 
giving  a  portion  of  the  list,  the  selections  being  dic 
tated  partly  by  claims  of  superior  merit,  and  partly 
by  accident. 

As  representative  men  and  women  of  the  East — 
chiefly  of  New  England  and  New  York — he  gives 
the  following: 

David  Lee  Child,  of  Boston,  for  some  time  editor 
of  the  National  Anti-Slavery  Advocate.  He  was 
the  husband  of  Lydia  Maria  Child,  who  wrote  the 
first  bound  volume  published  in  this  country  in 
condemnation  of  the  enslavement  of  "those  people 
called  Africans";  Samuel  E.  Sewell,  another  Bos- 
tonian  and  a  lawyer  who  volunteered  his  services  in 
cases  of  fugitive  slaves;  Ellis  Gray  Lowell,  another 
Boston  lawyer  of  eminence ;  Amos  Augustus  Phelps, 
a  preacher  and  lecturer,  for  whose  arrest  the  slave 
holders  of  New  Orleans  offered  a  reward  of  ten 
thousand  dollars;  Parker  Pillsbury,  another  preacher 
and  lecturer,  who  at  twenty  years  of  age  was  the 
driver  of  an  express  wagon,  and  with  no  literary  edu 
cation,  but  who,  in  order  that  he  might  better  plead 
the  cause  of  the  slave,  went  to  school  and  became  a 
noted  orator;  Theodore  Weld,  who  married  Ange 
lina  Grimke,  the  South  Carolina  Abolitionist,  and 
who  as  an  Anti-Slavery  advocate  was  excelled,  if 
he  was  excelled,  only  by  Henry  Ward  Beecher  and 
Wendell  Phillips ;  Henry  Brewster  Stanton,  a  very 
vigorous  Anti-Slavery  editor  and  the  husband  of 
Elizabeth  Cady  Stanton,  the  champion  of  women's 
rights;  Theodore  Parker,  the  great  Boston  divine; 
O.  B.  Frothingham,  another  famous  preacher; 
Thomas  Wentworth  Iligginson,  the  writer;  Samuel 


Rolls  of  Honor  205 

Johnson,  C.  L.  Redmond,  James  Monroe,  A.  T. 
Foss,  William  Wells  Brown,  Henry  C.  Wright,  G. 
D.  Hudson,  Sallie  Holley,  Anna  E.  Dickinson, 
Aaron  M.  Powell,  George  Brodburn,  Lucy  Stone, 
Edwin  Thompson,  Nathaniel  W.  Whitney,  Sumner 
Lincoln,  James  Boyle,  Giles  B.  Stebbins,  Thomas 
T.  Stone,  George  M.  Putnam,  Joseph  A.  Howland, 
Susan  B.  Anthony,  Frances  E.  Watkins,  Loring 
Moody,  Adin  Ballou,  W.  H.  Fish,  Daniel  Foster, 
A.  J.  Conover,  James  N.  Buffum,  Charles  C.  Bur- 
leigh,  Williamf  Goodell,  Joshua  Leavitt,  Charles  M. 
Denison,  Isaac  Hopper,  Abraham  L.  Cox. 

To  the  above  should  be  added  the  names  of  Alvin 
Stewart  of  New  York,  who  issued  the  call  for  the 
convention  that  projected  the  Liberty  party,  and  of 
John  Kendrick,  who  executed  the  first  will  including 
a  bequest  in  aid  of  the  Abolition  cause. 

And  here  must  not  be  omitted  the  name  of  John 
P.  Hale,  of  New  Hampshire,  who  was  a  candidate 
for  the  Presidency  on  the  Liberty  party  ticket, 
and  also  a  conspicuous  member  of  the  U.  S. 
Senate. 

Going  westward,  we  come  to  Ohio,  which  became, 
early  in  the  movement,  the  dominating  center  of  H 
Abolitionist  influence.  Salmon  P.  Chase  was  there. 
James  G.  Birney,  after  being  forced  out  of  Kentucky, 
was  there.  Ex-United  States  Senator  Thomas 
Morris,  a  candidate  for  the  Vice-Presidency  on  the 
Liberty  party  ticket,  was  there.  Leicester  King 
and  Samuel  Lewis,  Abolition  candidates  for  the 
governorship  of  the  State,  were  there.  Joshua^R. 
Giddings  and  United  States  Senator  Ben.  Wade 
were  there. 


206  The  Abolitionists 

One  great  advantage  the  Ohio  Abolitionists  en- 
joyed  was  that  they  were  harmonious  and  united. 
In  the  East  that  was  not  the  case.  There  was  a 
bitter  feud  between  the  Garrisonians,  who  relied  on 
moral  suasion,  and  the  advocates  of  political  action. 
All  Ohio  Abolitionists  were  ready  and  eager  to  em- 
ploy  the  ballot. 

There  is  another  name,  in  speaking  of  Ohio,  that 
must  not  be  omitted.  Dr.  Townsend  was  the  man 
who  made  Salmon  P.  Chase  a  United  States  Sena 
tor,  and  at  a  time  when  the  Abolition  voting  strength 
in  Ohio  was  a  meager  fraction  in  comparison  with 
that  of  the  old  parties — numbering  not  over  one  in 
twenty.  It  happened  to  be  a  time  when  the  old 
parties — the  Whigs  and  the  Democrats — had  so 
nearly  an  equal  representation  in  the  State  Legis 
lature  that  Townsend,  who  was  a  State  Senator, 
and  two  co-operating  members,  held  a  balance  of 
power.  Both  parties  were  exceedingly  anxious  to 
control  the  Legislature,  as  that  body,  under  the  State 
constitution  then  in  force,  had  the  distribution  of  a 
great  deal  of  patronage.  The  consideration  for  the 
deciding  vote  demanded  by  Townsend  and  his  asso 
ciates  was  the  election  of  Chase  to  the  Senate. 
They  and  the  Democrats  made  the  deal.  Naturally 
enough,  the  Whigs  expressed  great  indignation 
until  it  was  shown  that  they  had  offered  to  enter 
into  very  much  the  same  arrangement. 

Some  years  before  the  events  just  spoken  of, 
Townsend  had  been  a  medical  student  in  Cincinnati. 
One  day  he  stepped  into  the  courthouse,  where  a 
fugitive-slave  case  was  being  tried.  There  he  lis 
tened  to  an  argument  from  Salmon  P.  Chase,  the 


Rolls  of  Honor  207 

negro's  defender,  that  made  an  Abolitionist  of  him. 
The  senatorial  incident  naturally  followed. 

There  was  another  Ohioan — not  an  individual  this 
time,  but  an  institution — that  will  always  hold  a 
high  place  in  the  annals  of  Abolitionism.  Oberlin 
College  was  a  power  in  the  land.  It  had  a  corps  of 
very  able  professors  who  were,  without  exception, 
active  Anti-Slavery  workers.  They  regarded  them 
selves  as  public  instructors  as  well  as  private  teachers. 
There  was  scarcely  a  township  in  Ohio  that  they  did 
not  visit,  either  personally  or  through  their  disciples. 
They  were  as  ready  to  talk  in  country  schoolhouses 
as  in  their  own  college  halls.  Of  course,  they  were 
violently  opposed.  Mobs  broke  up  their  meetings 
very  frequently,  but  that  only  made  them  more 
persistent.  Their  teachings  were  viciously  misrep 
resented.  They  were  accused  of  favoring  the  inter 
marriage  of  the  races,  and  parents  were  warned,  if 
they  sent  their  children  to  Oberlin,  to  look  out  for 
colored  sons-in-law  and  daughters-in-law.  For  such 
slanders,  however,  the  men  and  women  of  Oberlin 
—for  both  sexes  were  admitted  to  faculty  and  classes 
— seemed  to  care  no  more  than  they  did  for  pro- 
slavery  mobs. 

.  There  is  another  name  which,  although  it  belongs 
exclusively  neither  to  the  East  nor  to  the  West,  to 
the  North  nor  to  the  South,  should  not  be  omitted 
from  a  record  ilke  this.  Doctor  Gamaliel  Bailey  re-" 
sided  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  issued  the 
National  Era  from  Washington  city. 

Although  a  journal  of  small  folio  measurement 
and  issued  but  once  a  week,  it  was  for  a  considerable 
time  the  most  influential  organ  of  the  Abolitionists. 


208  The  Abolitionists 

Its  circulation  was  large  and  its  management  very 
able.  Of  course,  it  took  no  little  courage  and  judg 
ment  to  conduct  such  a  publication  in  the  very 
center  of  slaveholding  influence,  and  more  than 
once  it  barely  escaped  destruction  by  mobs. 

If  there  was  nothing  else  to  his  credit  there  was 
one  thing  accomplished  by  the  Era  s  owner  that 
entitles  him  to  lasting  remembrance.  He  was  the 
introducer,  if  not  the  real  producer,  of  Uncle  Toms 
Cabin.  It  first  appeared  in  the  Era  in  serial  num 
bers.  It  is  perfectly  safe  to  say  that  no  other  news 
paper  in  the  country,  of  any  standing,  would  have 
touched  it.  Without  Dr.  Bailey's  encouragement 
the  work  would  not  have  been  written.  This  was 
admitted  by  Mrs.  Stowe. 

Up  to  this  point  the  people  whose  names  have 
been  mentioned  in  these  pages  have,  to  a  certain 
extent,  been  public  characters  and  leaders.  They 
were  generals,  and  colonels,  and  captains,  and  orderly 
sergeants,  in  the  army  of  emancipation.  There  were, 
also,  privates  in  the  ranks  whose  services  richly  de 
serve  to  be  commemorated,  showing,  as  they  do, 
the  character  of  the  works  they  performed.  The 
writer  cannot  resist  the  temptation  to  refer  to  two 
of  them  in  particular,  although,  doubtless,  there 
were  many  others  of  equal  merit.  A  reason  for  the 
preference  he  shows  in  this  case,  that  will  not  be 
misunderstood,  is  the  fact  that  one  of  the  men  was 
his  uncle  and  the  other  his  father. 

James  Kedzie  and  John  Hume  were  plain  country 
farmers  residing  in  southwestern  Ohio,  neither 
very  rich  nor  very  poor.  They  were  natives  of 
Scotland,  and  stating  that  fact  is  almost  equivalent 


Rolls  of  Honor  209 

to  saying  they  were  Abolitionists.  None  of  the 
Scotch  of  the  writer's  personal  knowledge,  at  the 
period  referred  to,  were  otherwise  than  strongly 
Anti-Slavery.  There  are  said  to  be  exceptions  to 
all  rules,  and  there  was  one  in  this  instance.  He 
was  a  kinsman  of  the  author,  and  a  "braw  "  young 
Scotchman  who  came  over  to  this  country  with  the 
expectation  of  picking  up  a  fortune  in  short  order. 
Finding  the  North  too  slow,  he  went  South.  There 
he  met  a  lady  who  owned  a  valuable  plantation  well 
stocked  with  healthy  negroes.  He  married  the  wo 
man,  and  became  something  of  a  local  nabob,  with 
the  reputation  of  great  severity  as  a  master.  One 
day,  with  his  own  hand,  he  inflicted  a  cruel  flogging 
on  a  slave  who  had  the  name  of  a  "bad  nigger." 
That  night,  when  the  master  was  playing  chess  with 
a  neighbor  by  candlelight  on  the  ground  floor  of  his 
dwelling,  all  the  windows  being  open,  the  negro 
crept  up  with  a  loaded  gun  and  shot  him  dead. 

The  sad  affair  was  regretfully  commented  on  by 
the  dead  man's  relatives,  who,  I  remember,  referred 
.to  his  untimely  ending  as  "his  judgment,"  and  as  a 
punishment  he  had  brought  upon  "himself." 

My  uncle,  and  father  did  not  conceal  their  unpopu 
lar  views.  They  openly  voted  the  Abolition  ticket. 
In  eight  years,  beginning  with  their  two  ballots, 
they  raised  the  third  party  vote  in  their  immediate 
vicinity  to  eight,  and  they  boasted  of  the  progress 
they  had  made. 

They  did  not  make  public  addresses,  but  they 
faithfully  listened  to  those  made  by  others  in  sup 
port  of  the  cause.  They  attended  all  Abolition 
meetings  that  were  within  reach.  They  took  the 

«4 


210  The  Abolitionists 

National  Era.  Not  only  that,  but  they  got  up 
clubs  for  it.  The  first  club  I  recollect  my  father's 
securing  consisted  of  half  a  dozen  subscribers,  for 
one  half  of  which  he  paid.  The  next  year's  was 
double  in  size,  and  so  was  my  father's  contribution. 
There  was  no  fund  for  the  promotion  of  the  Abo 
litionist  cause,  for  which  they  were  called  upon,  to 
which  they  did  not  cheerfully  pay  according  to  their 
means. 

All  Abolition  lecturers  and  colporteurs  were 
gratuitously  entertained,  although  their  presence 
was  sometimes  a  cause  of  abuse,  and  even  of  danger. 
There  were  other  travelers  who  sometimes  applied 
for  help.  Their  faces  were  of  dusky  hue,  and  their 
great  whitish  eyes  were  like  those  of  hunted  beasts 
of  the  forest.  They  went  on  their  way  strengthened 
and  rejoicing — always  in  the  direction  of  the  North 
Star. 

The  men  are  dead,  but  Slavery  is  dead  also,  partly 
through  their  labors  and  sacrifices.  Their  unpreten 
tious,  patient,  earnest  lives  were  not  in  vain.  They 
contributed  to  the  final  triumph  of  Freedom's  holy 
cause. 


APPENDIX 

EMANCIPATION  PROCLAMATION 

January  i,  1863. — WHEREAS,  on  the  22d  day  of  Sep 
tember,  1862,  a  proclamation  was  issued  by  the  President 
of  the  United  States,  containing,  among  other  things,  the 
following,  to  wit: 

That  on  the  ist  day  of  January,  1863,  all  persons 
held  as  slaves  within  any  State  or  designated  part  of  a 
State,  the  people  whereof  shall  then  be  in  rebellion 
against  the  United  States,  shall  be  then,  thenceforward 
and  forever  free,  and  the  Executive  government  of  the 
United  States,  including  the  naval  and  military  authority 
thereof,  will  recognize  and  maintain  the  freedom  of  such 
persons,  and  will  do  no  act  or  acts  to  repress  such  per 
sons  or  any  of  them  in  any  efforts  they  may  make  for 
their  actual  freedom. 

That  the  Executive  will  on  the  first  day  of  January 
aforesaid,  by  proclamation,  designate  the  States  and 
parts  of  States,  if  any,  in  which  the  people  thereof,  re 
spectively,  shall  then  be  in  rebellion  against  the  United 
States;  and  the  fact  that  any  State,  or  the  people  thereof, 
shall  on  that  day  be  in  good  faith  represented  in  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  by  members  chosen 
thereto  at  elections,  wherein  a  majority  of  the  qualified 
voters  of  such  States  have  participated,  shall,  in  the  ab 
sence  of  strong  countervailing  testimony,  be  deemed  con 
clusive  evidence  that  such  State,  and  the  people  thereof, 
are  not  then  in  rebellion  against  the  United  States. 

an 


212  The  Abolitionists 

Now,  THEREFORE,  I,  Abraham  Lincoln,  President  of 
the  United  States,  by  virtue  of  the  power  in  me  vested 
as  Commander-in-chief  of  the  Army  and  Navy  of  the 
United  States,  in  time  of  actual  armed  rebellion  against 
the  authority  and  government  of  the  United  States,  and 
as  a  fit  and  necessary  war  measure  for  suppressing  said 
rebellion,  do  on  this  first  day  of  January,  1863,  and 
in  accordance  with  my  purpose  so  to  do,  publicly  pro 
claimed  for  the  full  period  of  one  hundred  days  from  the 
day  first  above  mentioned,  order  and  designate  as  the 
States  and  parts  of  States  wherein  the  people  thereof  re 
spectively  are  this  day  in  rebellion  against  the  United 
States,  the  following,  to  wit: 

Arkansas,  Texas,  Louisiana  (except  the  Parishes  of 
St.  Bernard,  Plaquemines,  Jefferson,  St.  John,  St. 
Charles,  St.  James,  Ascension,  Assumption,  Terre 
Bonne,  Lafourche,  St.  Mary,  St.  Martin,  and  Orleans, 
including  the  City  of  New  Orleans),  Mississippi,  Ala 
bama,  Florida,  Georgia,  South  Carolina,  North  Caro 
lina,  and  Virginia,  (except  the  forty-eight  counties 
designated  as  West  Virginia,  and  also  the  counties  of 
Berkeley,  Accomac,  Northampton,  Elizabeth  City,  York, 
Princess  Ann,  and  Norfolk  and  Portsmouth)  and  which 
excepted  parts  are  for  the  present  left  precisely  as  if  this 
proclamation  were  not  issued. 

And  by  virtue  of  the  power  and  for  the  purpose 
aforesaid,  I  do  order  and  declare  that  all  persons  held  as 
slaves  within  said  designated  States  and  parts  of  States 
are,  and  henceforward  shall  be,  free,  and  that  the  Ex 
ecutive  government  of  the  United  States,  including  the 
military  and  naval  authorities  thereof,  will  recognize  and 
maintain  the  freedom  of  such  persons. 

And  I  hereby  enjoin  upon  the  people  so  declared  to 
be  free  to  abstain  from  all  violence,  unless  in  neces 
sary  self-defense;  and  I  recommend  to  them  that,  in  all 


Appendix  213 

cases  when  allowed,  they  labor  faithfully  for  reasonable 
wages. 

And  I  further  declare  and  make  known  that  such 
persons,  of  suitable  condition,  will  be  received  into  the 
armed  service  of  the  United  States,  to  garrison  forts, 
positions,  stations,  and  other  places,  and  to  man  vessels 
of  all  sorts  in  said  service. 

And  upon  this  act,  sincerely  believed  to  be  an  act  of 
justice,  warranted  by  the  Constitution  upon  military 
necessity,  I  invoke  the  considerate  judgment  of  mankind 
and  the  gracious  favor  of  Almighty  God. 

IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand 
and  caused  the  seal  of  the  United  States  to  be  affixed. 

Done  at  the  City  of  Washington  this  first  day  of  Jan 
uary,  1863,  and  of  the  independence  of  the  United 
States  the  Eighty-seventh. 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN. 

By  the  President: 
WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD,  Secretary  of  State. 

BORDER  SLAVE-STATE   MESSAGE 

AMENDMENT  to  the  National  Constitution  recom 
mended  by  President  Lincoln  in  his  Message  to  Con 
gress  of  December  T,  1862. 

Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives 
of  the  United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled: 
that  the  following  articles  be  proposed  to  the  Legislatures 
(or  conventions)  of  the  several  States  as  amendments  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  all  or  any  of  which 
Articles,  when  ratified  by  three  fourths  of  the  said  Legis 
latures  (or  conventions)  to  be  valid  as  parts  of  the  said 
Constitution,  namely: 

Article. — Every   State   wherein   Slavery   now   exists, 


214  The  Abolitionists 

which  shall  abolish  the  same  therein,  at  any  time  or. 
times  before  the  ist  day  of  January  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord  one  thousand  nine  hundred,  shall  receive  compen 
sation  from  the  United  States  as  follows,  to  wit: 

(Then  follows  a  provision  to  issue  bonds  of  the  United 
States  Government,  which  shall  be  delivered  to  the  States 
in  amounts  sufficient  to  compensate  the  owners  of  slaves 
within  their  jurisdictions  for  the  loss  of  their  slave 
property.) 

Article. — All  slaves  who  shall  have  enjoyed  actual 
freedom  by  the  charces  of  the  war,  at  any  time  before 
the  end  of  the  rebellion,  shall  be  forever  free;  but  all 
owners  of  such,  who  shall  not  have  been  disloyal,  shall 
be  compensated  for  them  at  the  same  rates  as  is  provided 
for  States  adopting  abolishment  of  slavery,  but  in  such 
way  that  no  slave  shall  be  twice  accounted  for. 

Article. — Congress  may  appropriate  money  and  other 
wise  provide  for  colonizing  free  colored  persons,  with 
their  own  consent,  at  any  place  or  places  without  the 
United  States. 

"PRAYER  OF  TWENTY   MILLIONS" 

On  the  iQth  of  August,  1862,  Horace  Greeley,  under 
the  above  heading,  addressed  a  letter  to  the  President, 
which  appeared  over  his  signature  in  the  New  York 
Tribune  of  that  date.  The  conclusion  of  Mr.  Greeley's 
epistle  was  as  follows: 

"  On  the  face  of  this  wide  earth,  Mr.  President,  there 
is  not  one  disinterested,  determined,  intelligent  champion 
of  the  Union  cause  who  does  not  feel  that  all  attempts 
to  put  down  the  rebellion,  and  at  the  same  time  uphold 
its  inciting  cause,  are  preposterous  and  futile — that  the 
rebellion,  if  crushed  out  to-morrow,  would  be  renewed 
within  a  year  if  Slavery  were  left  in  full  vigor — that  army 


Appendix  215 

officers  who  remain  to  this  day  devoted  to  Slavery  can 
at  best  be  but  halfway  loyal  to  the  Union — and  that 
every  hour  of  deference  to  Slavery  is  an  hour  of  added 
and  deepened  peril  to  the  Union.  I  appeal  to  the  testi 
mony  of  your  embassadors  in  Europe.  Ask  them  to  tell 
you  candidly  whether  the  seeming  subserviency  of  your 
policy  to  the  slaveholding,  slavery-upholding  interest 
is  not  the  perplexity,  the  despair  of  statesmen  of  all 
parties,  and  be  admonished  by  the  general  answer/* 


INDEX 


Abolitionism,    and    Republi 
canism,  8,  9;  end  of,  150- 

156- 

Abolitionist  movement,  v. 

Abolitionists,  hysterical 
praise  of,  i;  and  dissolu 
tion  of  the  Union,  i,  2; 
effect,  2;  struggles,  3;  and 
political  expediency,  5; 
convention  at  Pittsburg, 
7 ;  third-party,  7 ;  vote  of, 
7 ;  founders  of  Republican 
party,  8 ;  pro-slavery  mob 
bing,  9;  voting  strength, 
9;  organization,  10;  lec 
turers,  i  *:;  stump  orators, 
ii ;  newspapers,  n;  pre 
paratory  work,  1 2 ;  hostil 
ity  to  Union,  1 3 ;  disloyalty, 
13;  treason,  13;  place  in 
history,  15;  Quakers,  16; 
physical  courage,  16;  un 
selfishness  of,  16;  motives, 
18;  persecution  of,  20; 
feelings  against,  22;  hope 
fulness  of,  26;  first  presi 
dential  ticket,  28;  preju 
dice  against,  30;  abuse  by 
"gentlemen,"  32;  women, 
38;  preliminary  victory  of, 
47;  denunciation  of  early, 
49;  leaders,  186-198. 


Adams,  John  Quincy,  21,  41; 
attempted  expulsion  of, 
from  Congress,  69-7 1 ; 
speech  in  his  own  defense 
in  Congress,  89. 

Altee,  Edward  P.,  203. 

Altec,  Edwin  A.,  203. 

"Amalgamation,"  35. 

Anderson  "Bill,"  165. 

Andrew,  Governor,  of  Mas 
sachusetts,  Peleg's  Life  of, 
179. 

Anthony,  Susan  B.,  .102,  205. 

Anti -Slavery,  causes,  2;  mat 
ter  excluded  from  United 
States  mails,  4;  formation 
of  party,  13;  pioneers,  49- 
58;  lecturers,  76-78; 
orators,  88-93;  women, 
100-107;  mobs,  108-112; 
in  Haverhill,  108;  in  Nan- 
tucket,  109;  martyrs,  113- 
120;  sentiment  in  England, 

13°- 

Anti  -  Slavery  societies,  or 
ganization,  26;  in  New 
England,  72,  74,  75,  130, 
aoi;  National,  76,  79,  87, 
201. 

Anti-Unionist,  13. 


Bacon,  Benjamin  C.t  201. 


217 


218 


Index 


Bailey,  Dr.  Gamaliel,  100, 
207. 

Ballou,  Adin,  205. 

Barbadocs,  James,  202. 

Bates,  Judge,  161. 

Beecher,  Henry  Ward,  90, 
142,  148;  speech  in  Eng 
land,  90-93;  and  Lincoln, 
92. 

Bell,  152. 

Benson,  George  W.,  203. 

Benton,  Thomas  H.,  154. 

Birney,  Jas.  G.,  2,  5,  42,  56- 
58.  205. 

"Black laws"  3s;in  Ohio,  35. 

Black    Republic    of    Texas, 

135- 

Blair,  Gen.  Frank  P.,  158, 
186-191;  and  Missouri 
emancipationists,  i6i;and 
Missouri  Abolitionists,  1 88; 
appearance  of,  189;  fear 
lessness,  189;  quarrel  with 
Fremont,  189;  and  capture 
of  Camp  Jackson,  189-191; 
threats  against,  190. 

Blair,  Montgomery,  158,  161. 

Bonner,  Hon.  Benjamin  R., 

*55- 

Border-ruffianism,  153. 
Border  Slave-State  message, 

text  of,  213-214. 
Boyle,  James,  205. 
Bradley,  John,  135. 
Breckenridge,    152;  factions, 

1 1. 
Breckenridge,  Judge  Samuel 

M.,  175. 

Brodburn,  George,  205. 
Brown,  B.  Gratz,  155. 


Brown,  John,  45,  113. 
Brown,  William  Wells,  205. 
Buchanan,  James    153. 
Buffum,  Arnold,  201,  203. 
Buffum,  James  N.,  205. 
Bull  Run,  192. 
Burleigh,  Charles  C.,  205. 
Buxton,  Sir  Thomas,  132. 

CampJackson(St.Louis),i83; 
"affair"  at,  186-188;  effect 
of  capture,  191-194. 

Campbell,  David,  202. 

Campbell,  John  R.,  202. 

Capron,  Effingham  C.,  202. 

Carlisle,  Earl  of,  18. 

Chapman,  Mrs.  Henry,  33. 

"Charcoals,"  Missouri,  159; 
delegation  to  President, 
162,  166;  fight  for  "Free 
Missouri,"  162;  appeal  to 
President  for  protection, 
166-168. 

Chase,  Salmon  P.,  10,  13,  14. 
59-61,  148,  205;  financial 
policy,  60;  espousal  of 
Abolitionism,  61;  and 
"third  party,"  64;  election 
to  United  States  Senate, 
206. 

Child,  David  Lee,  204. 

Child,  Lydia  Maria,  204. 

Chittenden,  L.  E.,  134. 

Churchill's  Crisis,  157. 

Civil  War,  1 1 ;  due  to  Aboli 
tionists,  12. 

Clay,  Henry,  2,  6. 

"Claybanks,"  159;  exclusion 
from  National  Convention, 
169. 


Index 


2t9 


Coffin,  Joshua,  201. 

Coffin, Levi,  197-198;  "Presi 
dent  of  'The  Underground 
Railroad,' '..'  197. 

Colonization,  128-135;  Soci 
ety,  128;  and  England, 
130-132;  Lincoln's  opinion, 
133;  experiments,  133-134. 

Colonizationists,  pretended 
friendship  for  negroes,  130. 

Compromise  of  1850,  6. 

Conover,  A.  J.,  205. 

Cotton-gin,  invention  of,  31. 

Cox,  Abram  L.,  203,  205. 

Crandall,  Prudence,  persecu 
tion  of,  116-117. 

Crandall,  Dr.  Reuben,  117- 
118. 

Crisis,  The,  157. 

Cross  Keys,  battle  of,  184. 

Curtis,  Geo.  William,  88,  179. 

Curtis,  Gen.  Samuel  R.,  and 
military  control  of  Mis 
souri,  163-164;  charges 
against,  163. 

Democratic  party,  division 
of,  n. 

Democrats,  4,  7;  Anti-Ne 
braska,  9;  of  New  York,  9. 

Denison,  Charles  M.,  203, 
205. 

Dickinson,  Anna  E.,  205. 

Dissolution  of  Union,  peti 
tion  for,  a. 

"Doughface,".  4. 

Douglas,  Stephen  A.,  12; 
dislike  of,  by  slaveholders' 
factions,  xi;  defeated  for 
President,  94-99;  and 


Abolitionists,  1 53 ;  hated 
by  slave-owners,  153. 

Douglass,  Fred  ,  112. 

Drake,  Hon.  Charles  D.,  167. 

Dred  Scott  decision,  45-46; 
too  late  for  South's  pur 
pose,  47. 

Dresser,  Amos,  whipped,  119. 

Emancipation  proclamation, 
I37~I38I  due  to  Abolition 
ists,  12;  story  of,  139; 
moral  influence  of,  146; 
Lincoln's  reasons  for,  146; 
ineffective,  148;  text  of, 
211-213. 

Ewing,  Gen.  Thomas,  194; 
repulsion  of  General  Price, 
195- 

Field,  David  Dudley,  179. 

Fish,  W.  H.,  205. 

Fletcher,  Thomas  C.,  155. 

Fort  Donelson,  capture  of, 
184,  192. 

Fort  Henry,  capture  of,  184. 

Foss,  A.  T.,  205. 

Foster,  Daniel,  205. 

Foster,  Stephen,  39. 

"Free-Soil"  party,  65. 

Fr6mont,  General,  151;  and 
western  command,  184- 
185;  financial  bad  manage 
ment,  184;  defeats  Stone 
wall  Jackson,  184;  removal, 
185;  freedom  proclama 
tion,  185. 

Frost,  John,  203. 

Frothingham,  O.  B,,  204. 

Fugitive  Slave  Law,  5,  xax. 


220 


Index 


Fuller,  John  E.,  aoi. 
Fussell,  Bartholomew,  203. 

Gamble,  Hamilton  R.,   160; 
and     emancipation     ordi- 
,-         nance  of,  163;  and  military 
control  of  Missouri,  163. 

Garrison,  William  Lloyd,  13 
21,  26,  201,  202;  dragged 
through  streets  of  Boston, 
32;  imprisonment  for  libel, 
54;  reception  in  England, 
131-132;  speech  at  Exeter 
Hall,  131. 

Genius  of  Universal  Emanci 
pation,  The,  51. 

Giddings,  Joshua  R.,  2,  6,  205. 

Gillinghamm,  Chalkly,  203. 

Goodell,   William,    203,    205. 

Grant,  General,  44;  and 
"Charcoals,"  172;  nomina 
tion  by  Missouri  Radicals, 
174-176;  capture  of  Fort 
Donelson,  192. 

Greeley,    Horace,    142,    148, 

178.  179- 

Green,  Beriah,  203. 
Green,  William,  Jr.,  203. 
Grimk<§  sisters,  38,  103-106, 

204. 

Hale,  John  P.,  10,  205. 

Hall,  John  B.,  201. 

Hall,  Robert  B.,  203. 

Hallock's  Order  Number 
Three,  141. 

Harrison,  Wm.  Henry,  5. 

Hay,  John,  136. 

Henry,  Patrick,  Williams- 
burg  speech,  88. 


ligginson,    Thomas    Went- 

worth,  204. 
Hints  toward  Emancipation  in 

Missouri,  158. 
Hollie,  Sally,  205. 
Hopper,  Isaac,  205. 
How,  John,  155. 
Howland,  Joseph  A.,  205. 
Hudson,  Professor,  35,   na, 

205. 

Hudson,  Frederic,  89. 
Hume,  John,  208-210. 
Hutchinsons,  the,  141. 

He  a'Vache,  133. 
Indiana,  introduction  of  sla 
very  into,  5. 

Jackson,  Claiborne  F.,  186; 
attempt  to  make  Missouri 
secede,  186-188;  outwitted 
by  Nathaniel  Lyon,  188. 

Jackson,  Stonewall,  defeat 
of,  184- 

Jewitt,  Daniel  E.,  202. 

Johnson,  Andrew,  171,  180. 

Johnson,  Oliver,  73,  201. 

Johnson,  Samuel,  205. 

Jones,  David,  203. 

Joselyn,  Simeon,  203. 

Julian,  Geo.  W.,  Political 
Recollections,  177. 

Kansas-Nebraska  Bill,  44. 
Kedzie,  James,  208-210. 
Kelly,  Abby,  38-39. 
Kendrick,  John,  205. 
Kentucky,  21. 
Kimball,  David  T.,  Jr.,  aoa. 
King,  Leicester,  205. 
Kingsley,  Alpheus,  203. 


Index 


221 


Knapp,  Isaac,  201. 
"Know-Nothings,".  9. 

Lafayette,  17. 

Lane,  James  H.,  194-197; 
canvas  for  U.  S.  Senator, 
196-197;  attitude  on  sla 
very,  197. 

Lawrence,  city  of,  capture  by 
Quantrell,  165;  butchery 
of  inhabitants,  165. 

Leavitt,  Joshua,  205. 

Lewis,  Evan,  203. 

Lewis,  Samuel,  205. 

Liberal  party,  2,  3,  7,  8,  65. 

Liberator,  21;  first  issue,  55; 
South  Carolina  and  Georgia 
offers  reward  for  its  circu 
lation,  55-56;  excluded 
from  U.  S.  mails,  56; 
office  wrecked  by  mob,  56; 
opposed  to  separate  party 
action,  64. 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  2,  8,  u^ 
41;  election  of,  n,  48; 
Gettysburg  speech,  88;  and 
Douglas,  94-99;  debate  of 
1858,  94;  and  slavery,  96, 
97;  preferred  by  slave 
holders,  98;  Recollections 
of,  134-135;  and  emanci 
pation,  136-149;  and  Mis 
souri  Compromise,  139; 
message  to  Minister  Day 
ton  of  Paris,  140;  proposed 
constitutional  amendment, 
144;  special  message  to 
Congress,  December,  1863, 
144;  emancipation  policy, 
145;  and  Aboli  ti  oni  sts , 


147;  and  Free-Sellers,  172; 

Congressional       sentiment 

toward,    177;    antagonism 

to,  177-180;  Life  of,  by  1. 

N.  Arnold,  177. 
Lincoln,  Sumner,  205. 
Longhead,  Joseph,  203. 
Lovejoy,  Elijah  P.,  shooting 

of,  32,  89,  114-115,  161. 
Lowell,  Ellis  Gray,  204. 
Lundy,  Benjamin,  27,  50-54; 

meeting  with  Garrison,  54. 
Lyon,  Nathaniel,  188. 

McCrummil,  James,  203. 

McCullough,  John,  203. 

McKim,  John,  203. 

Mace,  Enoch,  203. 

Manumittal,    arguments 
against,  34-3 5. 

Marshall,  "Tom,"  70. 

Massachusetts  Legislature 
and  slavery,  105. 

May,  Samuel  J.,  203. 

May,  Rev.  S.  T.,  Recollet- 
tions,  1 08. 

Mexican  War,  44. 

Missouri,  157-185;  Compro 
mise,  6,  12,  139-140;  ad 
mission  to  Union  as  slave 
State,  43;  slavery  contest, 
67;  and  the  Union,  159-160; 
Radicals,  1 59 ;  Conserva 
tives,  159;  "Charcoals," 
159;  "Claybanks,"  159; 
military  control  of,  163- 
166;  guerrilla  bands,  165; 
pacification  of,  168;  Radi 
cals,  opposition  to  Lincoln, 
in  National  Convention, 


222 


Index 


Missouri, — Continued 

1 68- 1 69 ;  delegation  to 
Lincoln,  169-171;  Ger 
mans,  attacks  on,  181-182; 
loyalty  of.  182-183. 

Missouri  Democrat,  The,  157- 
158;  and  Louis  Snyder, 
158-159;  opposition  to 
Lincoln,  180;  support  of 
Johnson,  180. 

Monroe,  James,  205. 

Moody,  Loring,  205. 

Morris,  Senator,  205. 

Mott,  Mrs.  Lucretia,  38,  102- 
103. 

Mott,  James,  203. 

National  Anti-Slavery  Advo 
cate,  204. 

National  Era,  The,  100,  207- 
208. 

Negroes,  prejudice  against, 
in  North,  35;  in  Ohio,  36; 
stronger  in  North  than  in 
South,  36;  suffrage,  80; 
failure  as  freemen,  80-8 1. 

Newcomb,  Stillman  E.,  201. 

Nicolay,  J.  C.,  136. 

"Nigger  Hill,"  26,73. 

"Nigger-pens,"  31. 

Noyes,  179. 

Oberlin  College,  207. 
O'Connell,  Daniel,  131. 
Ohio,  pro-slavery,  2 1 ;  Aboli 
tionists  of,  21. 
Opdyke,  179. 
Ordinance  of  '87,  5. 
Otis,  James  F.,  202. 
Parker,  Theodore,  204. 


Parkhurst,  Jonathan,  203. 
Pennsylvania  Hall,  firing  of, 

3°. 

"Peonage,"  80. 
Phelps,  Amos,  202,  204.    . 
Philippine     Islands,     82-87; 

slavery  in,   82;  massacres 

in,   83;  abuses  in,   82-84; 

spoliation  of,  85. 
Phillips, Wendell,  142;  speech 

in  Faneuil  Hall,  88-89. 
Phillips,  Mrs.,  106-107. 
Pillsbury,  Parker,  204. 
Pleasanton,  General,  168, 
Pointdexter,  165. 
"  Popular  sovereignty,"  153. 
Powell,  Aaron  M.,  205. 
Prayer  of   Twenty  Millions, 

The,  142;  text  of,  214-215. 
Prentice,  John,  203. 
Presidential     campaign     of 

1844,  7- 
Price,  General  Sterling,  160, 

195- 

Prohibitionists,  2,  3,  14. 
Purviss,  Robert,  203. 
Putnam,  George  M.,  205. 

Quantrell,  165. 

Rankin,  John,  203. 

Raymond,  Henry  J.,  Life  of 
Lincoln,  177. 

Redmond,  C.  L.,  205. 

Republican  party,  2,  3,  7,  8; 
elements  of,  10;  lack  of 
policy,  io;  and  election  of 
Lincoln,  1 1 ;  existence  due 
to  Abolitionists,  12;  and 
negro  rights,  81;  and  Phil- 


Index 


223 


Republican  party,— Coni'd. 

ippine    Islands,     82;    and 

Abolitionism,  150-151. 
Republican  Party,  History  of 

the,  Curtis,  136. 
Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave 

Power,  142. 
Roosevelt,     Theodore,     and 

Abolitionists,  1-14. 
Rosecrans,  General,  168. 
Russell,  Earl   137. 

Schofield,  Gen.  John  M.t  and 
military  control  of  Mis 
souri,  163-164;  charges 
against,  164;  relieved  from 
command,  168. 

Secession,  pretext  for,  48. 

Sewell,  Samuel  E.,  204. 

Sharp,  John,  Jr.,  203. 

Shipley,  Thomas,  203. 

Sigel,  General,  183. 

Slave-owners,  mastery  of,  32. 

Slave  power,  submission  to, 
5;  northward  march,  13. 

Slave  production  in  Northern 
States,  31. 

Slavery,  destruction  of,  i ; 
overthrow  of,  3;  in  ante 
bellum  days,  20;  and  Bibli 
cal  authority,  22;  a  State 
institution,  27;  condemned 
by  Washington,  Jefferson, 
and  Henry,  31;  Northern 
support,  33-35,  68;  spread 
of,  42;  introduction  into 
Territories,  43-44;  practi 
cal  extirpation,  138. 

Sleeper,  John  R.,  203. 

Smith,  Gen.  A.  J.f  168. 


Snelling,  William  J.,  201. 
Southard,  Nathaniel,  202. 
South  Carolina  "black 

horse,"  192. 

Southmayd,  Daniel,  202. 
Southwick,  Joseph,  202. 
Stanton,  Elizabeth  Cady, 

102,  204. 
Stanton,     Henry     Brewster, 

204. 

Stebbins,  Giles  B.,  205. 
Sterling,  John  M.,  203. 
Stevens,  Thaddeus,  148,  177. 
Stewart,  Alvin,  205. 
Stillman,  Edwin  A.,  203. 
Stockton,  Henry  K.,  201 
Stone,  Lucy,  205. 
Stone,  Thomas  T.,  205. 
Stowe,  Harriet  Beecher  n, 

101,  102. 

Sumner,  Charles,  148,  179. 
Sutliff,  Levi,  203 
Sutliff,  Milton,  203. 

Tappan,  Arthur,  34. 

Tappan,  Lewis,  34,  203. 

Taussig,  James,  172. 

Taylor,  Gen.  Z.,  6. 

Texas,  annexation  of,  44. 

Thatcher,  Moses,  201. 

Thirteenth  Amendment,  138; 
vote  on,  143-144. 

Thompson,  Edwin,  205. 

Thoughts  on  African  Colon 
ization,  129. 

Thurston,  David,  202. 

Toombs,  Robert,  13. 

Torrey,  Charles  Turner,  118- 
119. 

Townsend,  Dr.,  ao$. 


224 


Index 


Uncle  Tom's  Cabin,  100,  208. 
Underground  railroad,   121- 

127;    confession    of    John 

Smith,  121-127. 
United  States  in  Far  East, 

85;  Army  increase  of,  85; 

Navy  increase  of,  85. 

Van  Buren,  Martin,  4;  a 
"doughface,'!  4;  Free  Soil- 
er,  5. 

Van  Zant  case,  61. 

Vickers,  Anson,  203. 

Virginia,  21. 

Wade,  Benjamin  F.,  44,  *79» 

205. 
Wakefield,  Horace  P.,  202. 


Walker,  Jonathan,  branded, 

119. 

Washington,  Booker,  136. 
Watkins,  Frances  E.,  205. 
Weld,  Theodore  W.,  103,  204. 
Wheeling,  Va.,  slavery  traf 
fic  in,  50. 

Whigs,  2,  5-7,  9- 

White,  James,  203. 

Whitney,  Eli,  31. 

Whitney,  Nathaniel,  205. 

Whitson,  Thomas,  203. 

Whittier,  John  G.,  202. 

Wilkes,  179. 

vVinslow,  Isaac,  202. 

Winslow,  Nathan,  202. 

Wise,  Henry  A.,  70. 

Wrignt,  Elizur,  Jr.,  203. 

Wright,  H^nry  C.,  205. 


T-iAV  TLSE 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

RENEWALS  ONLY—TEL.  NO.  642-3405 
This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


MAY  16  1969 17. 


- 

'        -            '.     '-•  ':  • 

DECEIVED 

IPS  2  8  '70  -SAM 

...  —  ,. 

Dtio  find  nf  SI  JMMFP  Prrinr 

-  subject  to  recall  after  — 

AUG    1  8  '71      j 

IN  ST 

CKS       MB 

''         tic/^'n  i  n  A4^Q 

71  -1  PM  41 

Bcu  D  LD  AUb 

LD  21A-40m-2,'69 
(J6057slOJ.476 — A-32 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


LD  21 


ruro-r 


General  Library 


YB  37529 


GENERAL  LIBRARY  -  U.C.  BERKELEY 


